Court Opinion

ID: 6545694
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:19:23.003498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:57.594897
License: Public Domain

McCulloch, J., (after stating the facts.) 1. Counsel urge that the court erred in refusing the third instruction asked by ■defendant, that, “if no motive be shown, it is a circumstance in favor of the defendant’s innocence, to be considered by the jury.” In criminal prosecutions it is competent to introduce testimony ■of facts and circumstances tending to show a motive or absence of motive for the commission of the crime by the accused, as tending, with more or less force, to establish his guilt or innocence. It is not improper for the court to instruct the jury that they may consider such testimony for that purpose. But this should be done in connection with all other facts and circumstances proved, and it is not proper for the court in the instructions to single out the proof of motive or absence of motive and tell the jury that they may consider that as a circumstance in favor of his guilt or innocence. Especially is this true where the language of the instruction is not guarded by a further instruction in the same connection that the jury are the exclusive judges of the weight and sufficiency of such testimony. . By giving the instruction in the form asked, the court would have placed undue weight upon the proof of absence of motive, thus invading the province of the jury. It would have been error for the'court to single out the question of motive for the crime and point to it as a proper subject of consideration as an evidence of defendant’s guilt, and it would have been equally erroneous and improper to point to the want of motive as an evidence of his innocence. We find no error in this ruling of the court. Nor do we find any prejudicial errors in the remarks of the court to the jury in declining to accept the conditional verdict offered. The learned judge should have contented himself with declining to accept the imperfect verdict, without any remarks or reference to the course which the defendant’s counsel could take in the future; but we think that there is nothing in his remarks calculated to prejudice the rights of the defendant before the jury. Especially is this true in view of his remarks to the jury a few minutes later. 2. Counsel press, as grounds for reversal, other alleged errors of the court, some of which were not preserved in the motion for new trial. This is true of the exception to the testimony introduced by the State showing, as a motive for the crime, the ill-will of defendant towards his wife’s father. It is urged that this was too remote to serve as a motive, but the exception to this ruling of the court is not brought forward in the motion for new trial. It is contended that certain members of the trial jury were allowed to separate from their fellow jurors during the progress of the trial, but we think that the testimony introduced on the hearing of the motion for new trial shows that these jurors were not subjected to any improper influences. One of the jurors is shown to have left the jury box during the progress of selecting the jury (after he had been accepted as a juror) and occupied for a short while a seat among the audience. This was before the completion of the jury and presentation of the case, and it is not shown that this juror was subjected to any improper influence. The separation of the juror at that time and under those circumstances was not sufficient to cast upon the State the burden of showing that he was not exposed to improper influence. This occurred in the presence of' the court and whilst the jury was being selected, and we can not say that he erred in his conclusion that the rights of the defendant had not been prejudiced by this indiscretion on the part of the juror.. 3. Appellant’s motion in arrest of judgment on the ground of present insanity did not state statutory grounds for arrest of judgment, but-should have been treated as a motion to stay sentence, and, as such, the court erred in overruling it. The statute reads as follows: “He may also show that he is insane. If the court is of opinion that there is reasonable ground for believing he is insane, the question of his sanity shall be determined, by a jury of twelve qualified jurors, to be summoned and impaneled as directed by the court. If the jury do not find him insane, judgment shall be pronounced. If they find him insane, he must be kept in confinement, either in the county jail or lunatic asylum, until, in the opinion of the court, he becomes sane, when judgment shall be pronounced.” Kirby’s Digest, § 2240. The fact that a plea of insanity has been interposed as a defense to the crime charged in the indictment and a verdict of guilty returned does not bar a plea of insanity at the time of the trial or at the time of sentence. Either plea may be offered after trial and verdict. The verdict of the jury was conclusive only of his sanity at the time of the commission of the homicide. State v. Helm, 69 Ark, 167, 61 S. W. 915; Linton v. State, 72 Ark. 532, 81 S. W. 608. Upon suggestion of the insanity of appellant, and reasonable grounds appearing for believing him to be insane, the court should have impaneled a jury to inquire into his condition. The testimony as to the mental condition of appellant at the time the homicide was committed was conflicting, though none of the testimony was directed to his condition at the time of the trial and verdict. The jury,.by the verdict first brought into court, demanding that an “investigation by experts be made into defendant’s condition,” demonstrated that after hearing all the evidence they had some misgivings as to his sanity, though a short time later they said by their verdict that they believed beyond a reasonable doubt that he was sane when he committed the homicide. We think, from this, that there were sufficient grounds for believing him to be insane, and that the court should have impaneled a jury to inquire into his condition. Finding no prejudicial error in the trial, the verdict will not be disturbed, but the cause is reversed and remanded, with directions to the court before sentence to impanel a jury to inquire into the sanity of appellant. Opinion delivered July 15, 1905.