Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

YOUNG v. STATE

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sep 26, 1960

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Case Information

CITATION CODES

citation codes

DOCKET NO.

No. 41572.

Attorney(S)

Karl W. Kepper, Hattiesburg, for appellant. I. The Circuit Court erred in overruling defense counsel's motion for the defendant to be examined by a state psychiatrist before proceeding with the trial of this cause. II. The Circuit Court erred in refusing the three defense instructions as follows: "The Court instructs the jury for the defendant that if, from all the evidence in the case, the jury have a reasonable doubt of the prisoner's sanity at the time of the rape, that is sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt of his guilt, and the jury should acquit." "You are instructed for the defendant that on the question of the intoxication of the defendant at the time of the alleged rape, if you find from the evidence he was intoxicated, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that such intoxication did not incapacitate him from forming a deliberate design to rape the minor prosecutrix; and if you have any reasonable doubt on this question, you must give the defendant the benefit of such doubt, and find him not guilty." "The Court instructs the jury for the defendant that you cannot convict the defendant in this case on the uncorroborated testimony of the minor prosecutrix alone, and if you so believe that she is of such tender age to fully understand the consequence of her testimony, then you may totally disregard it and find the defendant not guilty." Ford v. State, 73 Miss. 734, 19 So. 665; Smith v. State, 95 Miss. 786, 49 So. 945. J.R. Griffin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee. I. The Court did not err in overruling appellant's motion that the state furnish a psychiatrist to examine the defendant prior to a hearing on the question of his sanity. Carter v. State, 198 Miss. 523, 21 So.2d 404; Davis v. State, 151 Miss. 883, 19 So. 805; Skinner v. State, 198 Miss. 505, 23 So.2d 501; Williams v. State, 205 Miss. 515, 39 So.2d 3; Chap. 262, Laws 1960. II. The Court properly refused certain instructions of the defendant. Hand v. State, 190 Miss. 314, 200 So. 258; Alexander's Mississippi Jury Instructions, Sec. 2661, et seq.

JUDGES

GILLESPIE, J.

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

1. Criminal law — insanity — due process — trial court's refusal to furnish defendant with services of psychiatrist under circumstances shown in record not reversible error.

In rape prosecution, trial court's refusal to furnish defendant with services of a psychiatrist on basis of defense counsel's testimony that, in ten-minute interview, some of defendant's conversation was not rational, that defendant had not been able to furnish sufficient facts to either prove that he did or did not commit the crime, and that defense counsel thought that defendant should be examined by a psychiatrist did not constitute reversible error, in absence of proof of any specific statement or action of defendant tending to show that he was insane or testimony of defense counsel or of others that defendant was insane.

Headnote as approved by Gillespie, J.

GILLESPIE, J.

Nathaniel Young appeals from a judgment convicting him of raping a seven year old child. The death penalty was imposed. No purpose would be served in detailing the facts of this heinous crime.

Prior to trial on the merits appellant filed an unsworn motion suggesting appellant was presently insane and was not capable of making a rational defense. On the hearing of a motion to require the State to furnish appellant the services of a psychiatrist, the only evidence offered was the testimony of appellant's counsel who testified that in a ten minute interview some of appellant's conversation was not rational and that appellant had not been able to furnish sufficient facts to either prove that he did or did not commit the crime. Counsel would not say that in his opinion appellant was insane and no testimony was offered that appellant was insane. No proof was made of any specific statement or action of appellant tending to show that he was insane. Counsel for appellant stated that he thought appellant should be examined by a psychiatrist. This motion was denied and appellant assigned as error the action of the trial court in refusing to furnish him the services of a psychiatrist.

House Bill 668, Laws of 1960, had not been enacted into law when appellant was tried, and we do not consider the provisions of that Act. After the suggestion of insanity was filed, the court announced that a trial of the insanity issue would be had before a jury prior to trial on the merits. Upon the overruling of the motion to require the State to furnish appellant with the services of a psychiatrist, appellant's counsel withdrew the motion suggesting appellant's insanity, and the case thereafter proceeded to trial on the merits, and appellant offered no proof of insanity.

(Hn 1) Appellant cites no authority requiring the State to furnish the services of a psychiatrist, and under the circumstances shown by this record, there was no showing of lack of due process or unfairness to appellant. We find no merit in appellant's contention.

Appellant also complained of certain instructions which were requested by the appellant and denied by the trial court. We find no error in the refusal of these instructions.

After a careful review of the entire record we find no reversible error. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed and the 10th day of November, 1960, is hereby fixed as the date for the execution of the death sentence in the manner provided by law.

Affirmed and the 10th day of November, 1960, fixed as the date for the execution of the death sentence.

All Justices concur.