In re Smith
Citations
- 25 N.M. 48
- 176 P. 819
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Chapter 70, Code 1915, which provides for the issuance by a district judge of a commission in the nature of a writ de lunático inquiriendo to inquire into the lunacy or habitual drunkenness of any person within this state, or having real or personal estate therein, has no application to a person in the custody of the law awaiting' execution for a capital offense or as to a convict undergoing imprisonment for crime. Said statute was enacted solely for the purpose of protecting the civil and property rights of insane persons and habitual drunkards and for the care of indigent persons by the various counties. Hence an adjudication by a district court under such statute that a person who has been tried and convicted for the crime of murder and sentenced to death is a person of unsound mind is void, and does not have the effect to stay the execution. P. 51</p> <p>2. The common law forbids the trial, sentencing, or execution of an insane person for a crime while he continues in that state. Where a person has been convicted of a crime and sentenced to death, and, pending the execution, a suggestion is made to the court so passing sentence that the accused has become insane, and the court is satisfied from such suggestion that there is a question as to the sanity of such party, the court will, as a matter of humanity, make such investigation as may be necessary to become informed as to the sanity or insanity of such party. P. 57</p> <p>3. The court has the power to grant a stay of execution in such case for the purpose of enabling it to inquire into the sanity of one about to be executed. • P. 57</p> <p>4. The trial of the question of the sanity of a convict, suggested after the verdict and sentence, is at common law in the discretion of the judge, without an absolute right on the convict’s part to have the issue tried before a court and a jury. In this jurisdiction, there being no statute upon the subject, it is within the province of th
Judges: Hanna, Parker, Roberts
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
19 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Solesbee v. BalkcomSupreme Court· 1950-03-27· cited 155×
- Colleen Mary Rohan, Ex Rel. Oscar Gates v. Jeanne Woodford, WardenNinth Circuit· 2003-06-25· cited 85×
- State v. OrtegaNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1966-09-06· cited 71×
- Fisher v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1992-12-22· cited 58×
- State v. UptonNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1955-09-23· cited 54×
- Singleton v. StateSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1993-08-30· cited 49×
- Ashley v. PescorEighth Circuit· 1945-01-08· cited 36×
- State v. ChavezNew Mexico Supreme Court· 2007-12-03· cited 31×
- State v. PastetSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1975-06-24· cited 26×
- State v. FolkNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1952-08-05· cited 25×
- Bingham v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma· 1946-05-22· cited 25×
- State v. RoybalNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1966-05-31· cited 23×
- Magenton v. StateSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1957-03-18· cited 18×
- State v. VelasquezNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1966-03-07· cited 16×
- State v. NelsonNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1981-09-30· cited 15×
- Rector v. Bryant, Attorney General of Arkansas, Et Al.Supreme Court· 1991-09-20· cited 12×
- Neely v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia· 1945-06-29· cited 12×
- Bennett v. HunterTenth Circuit· 1946-04-27· cited 9×
- State v. BacaNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1980-08-26· cited 1×
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Nobles v. GeorgiaSupreme Court· 1897-11-29· cited 98×
- State v. NordstromWashington Supreme Court· 1899-07-24· cited 23×
- Bulger v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado· 1916-01-15· cited 21×
- State v. HelmSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1901-03-23· cited 18×
- Laros v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1877-06-11· cited 17×
- State ex rel. Lyons v. ChretienSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1905-02-11· cited 11×
- In re HerronSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1909-03-03· cited 9×
- State v. SmithNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1918-07-15· cited 8×
- In re LangSupreme Court of New Jersey· 1908-11-05· cited 6×
- Parker v. StateIndiana Supreme Court· 1893-11-09· cited 5×
- Lee v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia· 1903-10-29· cited 4×
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.