Court Opinion

ID: 9665988
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:01:37.083043+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:57.670820
License: Public Domain

ON REHEARING
This cause has been consolidated, i. e., the record originally submitted has been supplemented with a record resulting from a hearing in the circuit court on July 11, 1975, of appellant’s motion for a new trial. This transcript did not get to us until January 30, 1976.
The hearing below centered on whether or not George Coleman, a witness for the State on the original trial, was of such mental incompetency that his testimony could not be believed. This question was presented only by an affidavit of Coleman himself in which he stated that he used chloral hydrate, and also by unexplained medical records of his ins-and-outs of hospitals in Jefferson County for various and sundry ailments, imaginary and otherwise. We find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in overruling the motion for a new trial since the matter raised therein was in pertinent part explored by cross examination at the original trial.
McElroy on Evidence (2 ed.) § 94.01(2) relating to mentally defective persons as witnesses refers to Code 1940, T. 7, §§ 439 & 440, to the effect that persons during lunacy are incompetent witnesses.
We think it important to note that nowhere in the original trial was any question raised as to the mental capacity of Coleman as a witness. In view of the provisions of § 440, supra, that the trial judge must, by examination, decide upon the capacity of such a one, it is axiomatic that there be a challenge at the trial to such a witness.3 No such challenge having been made here, there was no opportunity to observe Coleman at the time he was testifying with respect to his mental capacity. It may be that Coleman was vague, with poor memory, but nevertheless, the lawyer who represented the defendant at the trial did not appear to be impressed to the degree of raising his mental ability.
*431The trial judge, at the beginning of the hearing, referred to the fact that defense counsel had raised in this court on appeal the fact that notice of appointment of himself had not reached him personally, yet he admitted in open court that the message may have been sent to his office. Counsel who hangs up his shingle and employs clerks must accept the usual effects of principal and agent so far as notice from a court to him (whether or not through an intermediary) is concerned.
The lapse of a cause, like a baton dropped by relay runners, is now less likely, under Rule 24(b), ARAP, which reads in part:
“(1) Appointed trial counsel shall continue as defendant’s counsel on appeal unless relieved by order of the trial court.”
After a consideration of the entire consolidated record in this cause the judgment below is due to be
Affirmed; application for rehearing overruled.
All the Judges concur.

. Code 1940, T. 7, § 440, reads:
“The court must, by examination, decide upon the capacity of one alleged to be incompetent from idiocy, lunacy, insanity, drunkenness, or infancy.”