Darnell v. State
Citations
- 24 Tex. Ct. App. 6
- 5 S.W. 522
- 1887 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 154
Syllabus
<p>1. Practice—Insanity.—Article 960 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of this State provides that “when, upon the trial of an issue of insanity, it is found that the defendant is sane, the judgment of conviction shall be enforced as if no such inquiry had been made.” The effect of this statute is to declare that the judgment of the trial court adjudging the defendant to be sane shall be conclusive of that issue, and that, thereupon, the judgment of conviction shall be enforced.</p> <p>2. Same.—Appeal to this court can be prosecuted only after the trial and conviction of the accused in the lower court for an offense and the entry of final judgment against him, which must appear in the record. A judgment rendered in an ex parte proceeding in the trial court, upon the issue of insanity of the accused, after his trial and conviction of an offense, is not such a judgment as will support an appeal to this court.</p> <p>3. Same—Case Stated.—In 1883 the appellant in this case was tried and convicted in the district court of Wood county for murder of the first degree. On his appeal to this court the judgment of conviction rendered below was affirmed. Subsequent to this affirmance, and before sentence was pronounced, information was filed in the district court setting forth that the accused had become insane. The trial of this issue resulted in a judgment of insanity against the appellant and he was confined in the State Lunatic Asylum. In the process of 'time he was discharged from said asylum as sane, and was delivered to the sheriff of Wood county. Thereupon a statutory affidavit, alleging that the appellant had become sane was filed in the district court, and, upon the hearing of the issue, thus presented, the jury found, and the court adjudged, the appellant to be sane. From this judgment this appeal is prosecuted. Held, that this is not a final judgment of conviction for an offense, such as is contemplated by law, and can coofer no jurisdiction upon this court. Therefo
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “It has been repeatedly and uniformly held in this state that an appeal can only be prosecuted from a final judgment of conviction rendered and entered against the defendant.”
- insanity finding after conviction and before final judgment
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Willson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
11 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Jackson v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1977-03-16· cited 271×
- Commonwealth v. MoonSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1955-10-04· cited 82×
- State v. NordstromWashington Supreme Court· 1899-07-24· cited 23×
- Bulger v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado· 1916-01-15· cited 21×
- Phyle v. DuffyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1949-08-01· cited 18×
- Walker v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1976-05-26· cited 15×
- Griffin v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1930-05-28· cited 13×
- State v. GardnerUtah Supreme Court· 1923-08-30· cited 9×
- Boehme v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas· 1954-02-03· cited 3×
- Gerald DeMarsh v. StateTex. App. Ct., 2nd Dist. (Fort Worth)· 2016-02-18
- Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/stateArizona Supreme Court· 2025-08-20
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.