Court Opinion

ID: 9688879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:10:26.964002+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:57.913969
License: Public Domain

Rodgers, J.,
dissenting:
With deference, I cannot agree with my colleagues, and I feel that I must point out the danger I see in the conclusion reached by the majority in this case. It is obvious to me that we are now moving in the new direction indicated by the United States Supreme Court, *509as outlined in our opinion in the case of Rogers v. State, 240 Miss. 610, 128 So. 2d 547, and away from the ancient, true and hallowed purpose of the habeas corpus writ.
The Habeas Corpus Law was never intended to be a method of appeal from the orders of a court of general jurisdiction to this Court, through another court of equal jurisdiction and dignity.
Section 2815, Miss. Code 1942, Rec., is in the following langmage: “The writ of habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto, except in the cases expressly excepted.”
This Court has pointed out that the foundation of the application for a writ of habeas corpus, in any court, is the allegation that the relator is unlawfully detained. Ex parte Walker, 53 Miss. 366.
The prisoner in the present case is confined in jail on a charge of murder. He is not permitted bail, (§ 29, Miss. Constitution), and he is therefore not illegally confined. The habeas corpus writ issued in the present case was not issued to release the prisoner or grant bail but was for the sole purpose of determining whether or not a circuit judge correctly exercised his discretion, from the evidence before him, as to whether or not he should perform the duty required of him to determine the ability of the prisoner to stand trial, by having him examined by a psychiatrist.
This Court has repeatedly held that a writ of habeas corpus cannot perform the functions of an appeal or a writ of error. Kelly, Sheriff v. Douglas, 164 Miss. 153, 144 So. 237; McLemore v. Love, 197 Miss. 273, 19 So. 2d 828; Rogers v. State, 222 Miss. 690, 76 So. 2d 831. It is only in instances when a prisoner is unlawfully held or detained on a void court order, or to fix the prisoner’s bond, that the writ will issue to release a *510prisoner from the custody of another court. See. the recent case of Jackson v. Waller, Sheriff, 248 Miss. 166, 156 So. 2d 594. The order of the Circuit Court of Hinds County directing the examination of the prisoner by a psychiatrist was not void. The Hinds County Court retained exclusive jurisdiction of the prisoner and had authority under the law to require the psychiatric examination of the accused. The mere fact that the Circuit Judge of Hinds County did not write in his order that it appeared to him personally that he should have the prisoner examined by a psychiatrist does not void the order. The application for writ of habeas corpus in this case was not soug’ht to release a prisoner accused of crime, for unreasonable delay in beginning the prisoner’s trial. The prisoner was sent to jail in Rankin County.
The Circuit Court of Hinds County is a court of original jurisdiction, and has powers belonging to a court of oyer and terminer and general jail delivery. (Section 1428, Code 1942.) It is the court of constitutional dignity and has jurisdiction “in all matters civil and criminal * * * not vested * * * in some other court * * *” (Miss. Constitution, '§ 156.)
This Court held in the case of Hawie v. Hawie, 123 Miss. 473, 91 So. 131, that where one was held in jail under an indictment for murder in Hinds County by authority of the Circuit Court of Newton County, the prisoner was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Circuit Court of the county where the indictment was pending, namely, Newton County.
However much one may feel as a matter of personal opinion, that one should not be examined by a doctor over his objection, it is nevertheless the law that the circuit judge may have him examined on his own motion. (Section 2575.5, Code 1942, Rec.) It has been widely accepted as a general rule that the trial court could have a prisoner examined by doctors to determine his *511mental capacity to make a rational defense. See Anno. 142 A. L. R. 999. Moreover, since the court has inherent power so to do, there is nothing new about the above code section except the payment of the psychiatrist. McGinnis v. State, 241 Miss. 883, 133 So. 2d 399.
Many years ago (1899) in the famous case of Lipscomb v. State, 76 Miss. 223, 25 So. 158, the trial judge appointed a number of physicians to examine the accused mentally to determine whether or not he was capable of making a rational defense. On appeal, this Court held that it was not error to require the accused to submit to such an examination.
In Shipp v. State, 215 Miss. 541, 61 So. 2d 329 (1952), the trial judge appointed a psychiatrist on motion of the State, and this was before the present law was enacted. In Musselwhite v. State, 215 Miss. 363, 60 So. 2d 807, this Court reminded the trial judge of his responsibility, and quoted Cooley on Blackstone, Vol. IV, p. 24, as follows: ‘ ‘ The right of the sovereign to execute one who is insane has always been denied at least since the repeal of Statute, 33 Henry VIII, c. 20. The present humane view is thus expressed by Blackstone: ‘If a man in his sound memory commits a capital offense, and before assaignment for it, he becomes mad, he ought not to be arraigned for it; because he is not able to plead to it with that advice and caution that he ought. And if, after he has pleaded, the prisoner becomes mad, he shall not be tried; for how can he make his defense! If, after he be tried and found guilty, he loses his senses before judgment, judgment should not be pronounced; and if, after judgment, he becomes a non-sane memory, execution shall be stayed: for peradventure, says the humanity of the English law, had the prisoner been of sound memory, he might have alleged something in stay of judgment or execution. ’ ’ ’ See Ratcliff v. State, 201 Miss. 259, 29 So. 2d 321; Carter v. State, 198 Miss. 523, 21 So. 2d 404.
*512In Rogers v. State, 222 Miss. 690, 76 So. 2d 831, the accused objected to the testimony of court appointed psychiatrist on the ground that the accused was compelled to give evidence against himself in violation of § 26, Miss. Constitution. In answer to this contention, this Court said: “The burden was on the court to determine whether or not he then had sufficient capacity to conduct a rational defense. These witnesses were experts in their field. Obviously they were in position to give more reliable information than lay witnesses. * * * It would be an anomaly indeed to charge a court with the responsibility of determining whether or not an accused has sufficient capacity to conduct a rational defense, when he is called to the bar to answer for a crime, and then make it impossible for the court to discharge its responsibility by denying to it the right and power to appoint expert witnesses to aid the court in quest of the truth. Such right and power must be held to be inherent in the court. ’ ’ Cf. Anno. 142 A. L. R. 961; 32 A.L.R. 2d 434.
Who, then, is to determine whether or not the trial judge is in need of expert testimony to perform his duty with reference to whether or not the accused is mentally capable of defending himself in a capital case? In the outset, let it be said, I agree with the majority opinion wherein it is said, before one is tried on an insanity plea, (§ 2575, Code of 1942), there must be “reasonable probability” of the insanity of the accused. This requirement is necessary when the court calls the jury to determine the present insanity of the accused and when the case may be indefinitely postponed while the defendant is in a mental institution. See Robinson v. State, 223 Miss. 70, 77 So. 2d 265; Skinner v. State, 198 Miss. 505, 23 So. 2d 501; Davis v. State, 151 Miss. 883, 119 So. 805; Eslick v. State, 238 Miss. 666, 119 So. 2d 355. The question of probable cause as to the inability of the accused to rationally defend himself is what the *513judge is trying to discover when a “doubt” has arisen in his mind, as to the mental condition of the accused so as to determine whether or not to submit the question to a jury under the authority of § 2575, Miss. Code 1942. If a judge knew accused was incapable of rationally defending himself, or knew there was “probable cause”, he would not need the assistance of expert witnesses. I am of the opinion that the judge can call to his aid psychiatrists whenever the court is in “doubt” as to the mental condition of an accused, and that it is his duty to so do. See Fralick v. State, 212 P. 377 (Ariz. 1923).
The true rule is set out in 23 C. J. S., Criminal Law, § 940 (2), p. 730, as follows: “The question raised on a motion for trial of the issue of accused’s sanity is not whether he is actually insane, but whether the facts are sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of his sanity, that is, as to the ability of accused to understand the charges against him and to conduct his defense in a rational manner; and the doubt contemplated by the rule is a doubt in the mind of the judge and not in that of some third person, such as counsel for the defense.
“The law contemplates that the doubt of the accused’s sanity may arise either from the court’s own observation or from evidentiary facts presented to it; and when the question is raised by motion, special plea, or oral suggestion the court should, in determining it, weigh and consider all relevant facts bearing thereon, whether offered in support or in opposition * *
It is said in 14 Am. Jur., Criminal Law, § 45, p. 802, that various facts are considered in determining the existence of present insanity which will prevent the trial of a person for crime. “The broad question, of course, is whether the accused, in so far as it may devolve upon him, may have a full, fair, and impartial trial. A component part of this question is whether the accused is mentally competent to make a rational defense.”
*514In the ease of Shipp v. State, 215 Miss. 549, 61 So. 2d 329, this Court quoted from the first Hawie case (125 Miss. 589, 88 So. 167) as follows: “But if there be any doubt whether the party be compos or not, this shall be tried by a jury.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The law contemplates that a “doubt” of the ability of the accused to properly defend himself because of his mental condition may arise from the court’s own observation, or from evidentiary facts presented to it. In the case of Hawie v. State, 125 Miss. 589, 88 So. 167, this Court said “if, at the arraignment of a defendant * * * it is suggested or appears to the court that he may be insane, the question of his sanity vel non should be inquired into and determined * * *” The test of a defendant’s sanity in an inquiry to determine whether he should be put on trial in a criminal case is whether he can then make a rational defense. This seems to be the universal rule. 23 C. J. S., Criminal Law, § 940 (2), at p. 731.
In the case of Carter v. State, 198 Miss. 523, 21 So. 2d 404, this Court said: “When it is made to appear in the trial court that the mentality of a defendant in a criminal case is probably of this character, (insanity) this trial should not be proceeded with until the question has been investigated, and it has been made to appear that he is sufficiently rational for the purposes of his defense.’.’
It has been held by this Court prior to the enactment of § 2575.5, Miss. Code 1942, Bee., that the inability of a defendant to rationally defend himself may be brought to the attention of the court orally by the defendant himself. Skinner v. State, 198 Miss. 505, 23 So. 2d 501. His attorney may also suggest that defendant is insane. See Olsen v. State, 224 Miss. 226, 79 So. 2d 841; Davis v. State, 151 Miss. 883, 119 So. 805; Shipp v. State, 215 Miss. 541, 61 So. 2d 329; Pace v. State, 218 Miss. 616, 67 So. 2d 521.
*515When it is suggested to the court that the defendant is incapable of making a rational defense, it becomes the duty of the court to determine that question before proceeding further, and the court may even empanel a second jury if necessary to determine the mental capabilities of an accused. Gilmore v. State, 225 Miss. 173, 82 So. 2d 838.
The question of “doubt” as to the sanity of an accused may be submitted to a separate jury, and is a question within the sound, legal discretion of the trial judge. This rule is expressed by one textwriter in the following language: “ Psychiatric examination. In making its determination as to whether to hold a separate trial or hearing as to accused’s mental condition at the time of the trial, the court may properly seek the opinion of a psychiatrist. In fact, under a statute so providing, the court must, on the filing of a proper motion, cause a psychiatric examination of accused to be made; and only if the report of the psychiatrist indicates insanity or mental incompetency on the part of accused person is the court required to hold a hearing.” 23 C. J. S., Criminal Law, '§ 940 (2), at p. 732. See also Olsen v. State, 224 Miss. 226, 79 So. 2d 841. This question is annotated in 142 A. L. R. 966, wherein it is pointed out that “In the absence of a statutory provision to the contrary, the granting or denial of an investigation of the present sanity of the accused to determine whether he shall be put on trial, or whether his trial shall continue, is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” (Emphasis supplied.)
While some writers on psychiatry may believe the court’s acts on motions to determine the capability of a defendant to defend his case is a method of putting undesirables away in cold storage without the benefit of a trial, this Court has expressed itself in a different vein in Lipscomb v. State, 76 Miss. 223, 25 So. 158, as follows: ‘ ‘ The trial judges are presumed to be honest, *516impartial, and capable officials, and they should be permitted to exercise that discretion in such matters which the law invests in them; and a conviction for crime ought not to be reversed for such reason as that we are considering, unless the case be indeed an extreme abuse of discretion * * * While we are not prepared to give judicial sanction to everything that was done by the learned judge of the court below in order to satisfy his mind of the real truth concerning the appellant’s mental and physical condition before denying the application for continuance, yet we do not hesitate to adjudge, looking at this record as a whole, viewing the proceedings in the court below from the standpoint of a concluded trial, that sound judicial discretion is not shown to have been abused, and that it is manifest that the court below honestly and impartially endeavored to adjudge in accordance with the very truth. We do not think the fact that the judge received the sworn report of the physicians appointed to examine appellant constitutes reversible error.”
As a general rule of law, the appellate court will not set aside an order of a trial court, based upon a determination of fact which rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge, unless an abuse of discretion is clearly shown. 5A C. J. S., Appeal and Error, '§ 1643, p. 230.
It is said in 2 Am. Jur., Appeal and Error, '§ 142, p. 936, that “In some jurisdictions, the decision of the trial court in refusing an inquest to determine the sanity of the prisoner has been reviewed, although the decision of the lower court was followed, in the absence of evidence greatly preponderating against its finding. It has, however, been held that the ruling’ of the court upon the application for a hearing as to the sanity of the prisoner is not reviewable by appeal or writ or error, and that the judgment of the trial court adjudging defendant to be sane is conclusive of that issue.”
*517I am, for the reasons set forth above, of the opinion that the Circuit Court of Rankin County had no authority to retry the issue as to whether or not the Circuit Judge of Hinds County should have a prisoner examined by a psychiatrist to determine his capability to present a rational defense. The trial under a writ of habeas corpus proceeding was not warranted, and the order should not have been issued releasing the prisoner from the custody of the authorities at Whitfield, and returning him to jail.
Kyle, J. joins in this dissent.