Opinion ID: 1628856
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for Commitment for Sanity Evaluation

Text: By this motion counsel for Boulden apparently sought to invoke the authority granted the trial court by the provisions of § 425, Title 15, Code 1940, which reads: Whenever it shall be made known to the presiding judge of a court by which an indictment has been returned against a defendant for a capital offense, by the written report of not less than three reputable specialist practitioners in mental and nervous diseases, appointed by the judge, or by the written report of the superintendent of the Alabama state hospitals, that there is reasonable ground to believe that such defendant was insane either, at the time of the commission of such offense, or presently, it shall be the duty of the presiding judge to forthwith order that such defendant be delivered by the sheriff of the county to the superintendent of the Alabama state hospitals, who is charged with the duty of placing such defendant under the observation and examination of himself and two members of his medical staff to be named by him, constituting a commission on lunacy, with the view of determining the mental condition of such defendant and the existence of any mental disease or defect which would affect his present criminal responsibility, or his criminal responsibility at the time of the commission of the crime.       In Howard v. State, 278 Ala. 361, 178 So. 2d 520, decided on June 30, 1965, in upholding the action of the trial court in overruling a similar motion, we said:    the court is under no duty to appoint a lunacy commission or to procure a report of the Superintendent of the Alabama State Hospitals under Tit. 15, § 425, Code 1940. The court has simply the right to seek these aids for advisory purposes when the court, in its discretion, thinks such aids will be helpful. Campbell v. State, 257 Ala. 322, 58 So.2d 623; Oliver v. State, 232 Ala. 5, 166 So. 615. (Emphasis supplied.) See Aaron v. State, 271 Ala. 70, 122 So. 2d 360; Lokos v. State, 278 Ala. 586, 179 So.2d 714, this day decided. We hold that error to reverse is not made to appear in the trial court's action in overruling the motion presently under consideration.