Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

29 S.W.2d 349

Griffin v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · decided 1930-05-28

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The question of whether or not the proceeding above was ancillary to the murder case and its issues “of law might therefore be brought up with the main case is not here presented. We pass only on the right to appeal directly from a finding that he was mentally competent to conduct a rational defense.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Jackson v. State

Relies on 96 Tex. Crim. 256 - Ex Parte Ewell Morris · 108 Tex. Crim. 84 - Millikin v. Jeffrey, District Judge

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1930-05-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 2002

10 state decisions

5019301940195019601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

MARTIN, J.

¶1The appellant in this case was indicted for murder. When his case was called for trial, a motion duly verified by the wife of appellant was filed and presented to the court which alleged that the appellant was mentally incompetent to make a rational defense, and asking that the court hear evidence to determine the mental condition of 'appellant. This was granted, and a separate trial was had. In response to special issues submitting this matter, the jury returned a verdict against appellant, and judgment was entered accordingly. Motion for a new trial was filed ■and overruled, and notice of appeal to this court given and entered of record. It thus appears that appellant is attempting to appeal direct from ,a finding in the lower court that he was mentally competent td make a rational defense.

¶2The jurisdiction of the Court of Criminal Appeals is fixed by the Constitution, and is "'limited in article 5, § 5, to “all criminal cases of whatever grade, with such exceptions and under such regulations as may be prescribed by law.” There is neither constitutional provision nor statutory authority which would expressly or impliedly in our opinion give the right of appeal from an order of the character noted above. Manifestly it does not amount to the conviction of an offense. It is not a “criminal ease” and we therefore cannot entertain jurisdiction of this appeal. 4 Tex. Jur. Par. 6; Millikin v. Jeffrey, 10S Tex. Cr. R. 84, 299 S. W. 435; De Silvia v. State. 98 Tex. Cr. R. 499, 267 S. AV. .271; Ex parte Morris, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 256, 257 S. W. 894; Holland v. State, 52 Tex. Cr. R. 160, 105 Tex. Cr. R. 812; Darnell v. State, 24 Tex. App. 6, 5 S. W.. 522.

¶3The question of whether or not the proceeding above was ancillary to the murder case and its issues of law might therefore be brought up with the main case is not here presented. We pass only on the right to appeal direct from a finding that he was mentally competent to conduct a rational defense.

¶4Believing that this court is without jurisdiction, the appeal is dismissed.

¶5PER CURIAM.

¶6The foreging opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.'

/29/sw2d/349 · .json · Public domain