{
  "id": 8722106,
  "name": "FRANK \"Sonny\" DAVIS v. Henry M. BRITT, Judge",
  "name_abbreviation": "Davis v. Britt",
  "decision_date": "1967-11-27",
  "docket_number": "5304",
  "first_page": "556",
  "last_page": "560",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "243 Ark. 556"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "420 S.W.2d 863"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "231 Ark. 466",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1697109
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/231/0466-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 Ark. 308",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1653120
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/222/0308-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 S. W. 31",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 Ark. 290",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1355647
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/158/0290-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 S. W. 573",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 Ark. 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1337137
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/110/0523-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 413,
    "char_count": 6667,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.54,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.895036619894245e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49982103203700295
    },
    "sha256": "2a77b34c17e242a240f03c03c2d85d3c7c21ad020c28e0c1105c4f744cb08055",
    "simhash": "1:4253586d6d898307",
    "word_count": 1150
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:02:41.806727+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank \u201cSonny\u201d DAVIS v. Henry M. BRITT, Judge"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Paul Ward, Justice.\nThe question here presented is novel, important and, insofar as we can ascertain, is without direct precedent in this State.\nBriefly stated, the question is: Does the judiciary or the State Hospital have the authority to determine the \u201csanity\u201d or the \u201cinsanity\u201d of a person on trial for first degree murder? The material background facts out of which this question arose are set out below.\nWe now examine the statutes relied on to sustain this contention.\n(1) Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-108 (Repl. 1964), which reads:\n\u201cA lunatic, or insane person without lucid intervals, shall not be found guilty of any crime or misdemeanor with which he may be charged\u201d.\n(2) Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-109 (Repl. 1964), which reads:\n\u201cAn idiot shall not be found guilty or punished for any crime or misdemeanor\u201d.\nIt is obvious from a casual reading of the above two statutes that they have no bearing on the question here involved. It is not an issue as to whether petitioner can be \u201cfound guilty\u201d or \u201cpunished\u201d but whether he can be \u201ctried\u201d.\n(3) The statute which is the main support for petitioner\u2019s contention is Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 59-237 (Supp. 1965). The portion of this statute which is pertinent to the issue here reads:\n\u201c. . . when any person who has been informed against or indicted upon a felony charge and who has been committed to the State Hospital for a mental examination under [Ark. Stats. (1947) \u00a7 43-1301] and has been found to be insane, the Superintendent shall request a writ of commitment from the judge before whom the case is pending. The request for commitment shall be accompanied by a certificate from the medical staff of the State Hospital setting forth the facts as to the patient\u2019s mental condition, and that he is insane; and thereupon the Court before whom the case is pending shall issue an order of commitment to the State Hospital. Thereafter such person shall be confined in the State Hospital until he regains his sanity.\u201d (Emphasis ours.)\nPetitioner, Frank \u201cSonny \u201d Davis, was charged with first degree murder. Upon arraignment January 30, 1967 petitioner entered a plea of \u201cnot guilty by reason of insanity\u201d. Thereupon the trial court committed petitioner to the State Hospital for observation for a period not to exceed thirty days, as provided in Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-1301 [Repl. 1964.]\nOn February 28, the Hospital made a written report to the court stating: \u2018 \u2018 Their diagnosis was: Manic Depressive Reaction, Manic type\u201d, and that petitioner \u201cwas probably mentally ill to the degree of legal ire-responsibility at the time of the alleged commission of his acts\u201d. The report also- recommended that the petitioner remain in the Hospital for treatment, and requested the court \u201cto issue .a Writ of Commitment to give the Hospital the legal authority for the petitioner\u2019s detention\u201d under Ark. Stat. Ann. $ 59-237 (Supp. 1965).\nOn March 2, the court asked the Hospital to furnish a statement of its findings, which was done on May 5, but in the meantime the Hospital had asked the court for a commitment since, otherwise, it had no legal authority to hold petitioner.\nThe trial court refused to re-commit petitioner to the Hospital, and set his trial for August 10, 1967. Previously, however, this \u201cPetition for a Writ of Prohibition\u201d wherein this Court is asked to prohibit the circuit court from proceeding with the trial \u201cuntil Petitioner has regained his sanity\u201d had been filed.\nContention of Petitioner. It is the contention of petitioner that the trial court is legally bound to recommit him to the Hospital and that, therefore, it has no jurisdiction or authority to proceed with the trial. We call attention to the words first emphasized above which require interpretation. If they mean \u201cfound to be insane\u201d by a trial court, then this petition must necessarily be denied because no such finding has been made by the trial court in this case. Necessarily, therefore, petitioner must have taken the position that the words mean \u2014 \u201cfound to be insane\u201d by the Hospital personnel. We accept this interpretation, for the purpose of this opinion, as being correct because the statute also says the Writ is requested \u201cfrom the judge before whom the case is pending\u201d. It would appear evident that if the case is \u201cpending\u201d there would have been no final judgment.\nWe now call attention to the last sentence in the statute which gives the State Hospital the right to retain petitioner until \u201che regains his sanity\u201d. At this point we also call attention to the fact that this is the exact relief which the' petitioner here requests.\nConsequently this Court is called upon to answer the following question: Is a statute constitutional, which takes away from the judiciary and delegates to a branch of the executive department, the right and power to finally decide whether a person (charged with murder) is \u201csane\u201d or \u201cinsane\u201d? Our answer to the question is \u201cno\u201d.\nWhere a person charged with murder and enters a plea of insanity a fact question is presented, and this fact question should be, and has uniformly been, decided by a jury in a court of law. See: Duncan v. State, 110 Ark. 523, 162 S. W. 573; Wilhite v. State, 158 Ark. 290, 250 S. W. 31; Green v. State, 222 Ark. 308, 259 S. W. 2d 142, and; Downs v. State, 231 Ark. 466, 330 S. W. 2d 281. Numerous other cases to the same effect could be cited. Petitioner cites no decision of this Court or any court to the contrary, and our research reveals no such case.\nVolume 32 of Corpus Juris at page 756, under the topic of \u201cInsane Persons\u201d deals with \u201cProof of Sanity or Insanity; Province of Court and Jury\u201d. Among other things it is there stated:\n\u201cIt is presumed in law that all men are sane, and the burden to prove insanity is on the person alleging it,\u201d citing cases from sixteen different states.\nThere are two recent articles in volume 20 of the Arkansas Law Eeview, one at page 121 and the other at page 398, both dealing with the Burden of Proof of Insanity in criminal cases. The essence and effect of both discussions, insofar as they bear on the issue here, is to require \u201cthe defendant to establish his incapacity to the satisfaction of either the court or jury\u201d.\nIt is our conclusion in this case; that the Hospital has no power or legal right to demand custody of petitioner for an indefinite time to be determined by it; and that the trial court cannot, at this stage of the proceedings, be forced to deliver petitioner to the Hospital.\nWrit denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Paul Ward, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Holt, Park & Holt, for petitioner.",
      "Joe Purcell, Attorney General; Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank \u201cSonny\u201d DAVIS v. Henry M. BRITT, Judge\n5304\n420 S. W. 2d 863\nOpinion delivered November 27, 1967\nHolt, Park & Holt, for petitioner.\nJoe Purcell, Attorney General; Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0556-01",
  "first_page_order": 578,
  "last_page_order": 582
}