People v. . McElvaine

Citations

• 26 N.E. 929
• 125 N.Y. 596
• 8 N.Y. Crim. 156
• 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 180
• 80 Sickels 596
• 1891 N.Y. LEXIS 1521

Syllabus

<p>Where upon the whole case it appears upon a criminal trial that defendant had sufficient intelligence and self control to understand the nature and character of the act committed by him and to refrain from its commission if found to be inconsistent with a due regard for Ms own safety or interest, defendant had sufficient mental capacity to make him legally responsible for Ms acts.</p> <p>It is only when the necessity of an examination as to the sanity of a prisoner is sufficiently made to appear to the court in which the indictment is pending that it is bound to order an examination; but it would be the plain duty of a court when the subject is brought to its attention by responsible parties, to make itself a sufficient inspection and examination to determine whether the application is made in good faith and upon plausible grounds; and the apparent facts thus discovered are made the condition of the right of the court to institute the statutory inquisition.</p> <p>The statute (Code Orim. Proe. § 658) contemplates two cases in which a commission may be appointed to inquire into the sanity of a prisoner: First, after a plea on the merits and before trial, to determine his mental condition at the time of the commission of the crime; and Second, when a person in confinement under indictment whether before or after conviction appears to be insane, to determine his mental condition at the time of the examination.</p> <p>The trial court is invested with a discretion to order such an examination or not as it may from inspection, observation, and information judge to be necessary or expedient.</p>