TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People v. Scott

THE PEOPLE v. RICHARD SCOTT

People v. Scott, 59 Cal. 341 (1881)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
California Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 15, 1881
Docket
No. 10,556
Judges
Morrison
Citations
59 Cal. 341
Cited by 7
Headnotes
Motion to Withdraw Plea or Guilty—Insanity.—The Court below refused to grant the motion of the defendant to withdraw a plea of “guilty,” and to plead “not guilty.” Held: There was evidence sufficient to raise a doubt as to the sanity of the defendant at the time the plea of guilty was interposed, and under the circumstances of the case the motion should have been granted.
Summary
Appeal from a judgment of conviction in the Superior Court of the County of Tehama. Lewis, J.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Morrison

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Morrison, C. J.:

The defendant was prosecuted by information in the Superior Court of Tehama County for the crime of incest, and upon his arraignment pleaded guilty to the charge. Subsequently, and before sentence, it was suggested to the Court that the defendant was insane, and thereupon the Court ordered that the question of insanity be tried by a jury. The trial occurred, and the jury pronounced the defendant insane. He was thereupon sent to the Insane Asylum at Napa, and was subsequently discharged on the certificate of the physician at the asylum that he was then sane, whereupon the Court below sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment in the State Prison. Before judgment was pronounced, a motion was made on behalf of the defendant for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty, and that motion was supported by numerous affidavits tending to show that the defendant had not been of sound mind for several years, and that he was at one time an inmate of the Insane Asylum at Jacksonville, 111. The motion for leave to withdraw the plea of guilty was denied by the Court, and we think that was error.

There was evidence sufficient to raise a doubt respecting the condition of the defendant’s mind at the time his plea of guilty was interposed, and, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, the defendant should have been permitted to *342 withdraw that plea. (People v. lee, 17 Cal. 76 ; People v. McCrary, 41 id. 458.)

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Ross, Sharpstein, Myrick, Thornton, McKee, and Mc-Kinstry, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →
1910: 11914: 11932: 11938: 11941: 11958: 11967: 119102026peak 1910 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Eckles v. State180 So. 764 (Fla. 1938)
  2. Dodds v. State100 So. 2d 453 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1958)
  3. People v. Laudermilk431 P.2d 228 (Cal. 1967)
  4. People v. Bostic141 P. 380 (Cal. 1914)
  5. State v. Stevenson68 S.E. 286 (W. Va. 1910)
  6. In re Glick14 P.2d 796 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)

Most recent

  1. People v. Laudermilk431 P.2d 228 (Cal. 1967)
  2. Dodds v. State100 So. 2d 453 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1958)
  3. People v. Gallantier117 P.2d 431 (Cal. Ct. App. 1941)
  4. Eckles v. State180 So. 764 (Fla. 1938)
  5. In re Glick14 P.2d 796 (Cal. Ct. App. 1932)
  6. People v. Bostic141 P. 380 (Cal. 1914)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
People v. Lee, 17 Cal. 76 (1860) 32

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list