Thompson v. State

Supreme Court of Alabama

Thompson v. State

364 So. 2d 682, 1977 Ala. LEXIS 2321

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedMay 6, 1977

DocketSC 1896

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 364 So. 2d 682 (Thompson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Thompson v. State, 364 So. 2d 682, 1977 Ala. LEXIS 2321 (Ala. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

EMBRY, Justice.

WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

By quashing the writ in this case we wish to be clearly understood as not approving the statement in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeal’s opinion:

“When the neurosurgeon gave his opinion as to Mrs. Thompson’s loss of memory, presumptively — in the peculiar facts of this case — it became apparent that she was incompetent to stand trial because she had lost (with or without her fault) a faculty necessary to tell her lawyer about the incident. This virtually shifted the burden to the prosecution. * * *”

The neurosurgeon’s testimony made an issue for trial of the effect of Mrs. Thompson’s amnesia upon her competency to stand trial. The most widely accepted test as to when amnesia renders one incompetent to stand trial is whether that amnesia renders a defendant incapable of: comprehending his position; understanding the nature and object of the proceedings against him; participating in the conduct of his defense in a rational manner, and cooperating with counsel to the end that any available defense may be interposed. See Edgerson v. State, 53 Ala.App. 581, 302 So.2d 556 (1974); 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 63; Annot., 46 A.L.R.3d, pp. 552-553.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER, JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur. MADDOX, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

EMBRY, Justice.

WRIT QUASHED AS IMPROVIDENTLY GRANTED.

By quashing the writ in this case we wish to be clearly understood as not approving the statement in the opinion of the Court of Criminal Appeal’s opinion:

“When the neurosurgeon gave his opinion as to Mrs. Thompson’s loss of memory, presumptively — in the peculiar facts of this case — it became apparent that she was incompetent to stand trial because she had lost (with or without her fault) a faculty necessary to tell her lawyer about the incident. This virtually shifted the burden to the prosecution. * * *”

The neurosurgeon’s testimony made an issue for trial of the effect of Mrs. Thompson’s amnesia upon her competency to stand trial. The most widely accepted test as to when amnesia renders one incompetent to stand trial is whether that amnesia renders a defendant incapable of: comprehending his position; understanding the nature and object of the proceedings against him; participating in the conduct of his defense in a rational manner, and cooperating with counsel to the end that any available defense may be interposed. See Edgerson v. State, 53 Ala.App. 581, 302 So.2d 556 (1974); 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, § 63; Annot., 46 A.L.R.3d, pp. 552-553.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER, JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur. MADDOX, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 So. 2d 682, 1977 Ala. LEXIS 2321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-state-ala-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack