If after conviction and sentence to death, but at any time before the execution of the sentence, it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the trial court that the convict is then insane, such trial court shall forthwith enter an order in the trial court suspending the execution of the sentence to the time fixed in the order; and, if it subsequently is made to appear to the court that such convict, the execution of the sentence of whom has thus been suspended, is restored to sanity, the trial court shall forthwith have another order entered ordering and commanding the execution of the judgment and sentence originally awarded in said court at a time fixed in such order. This mode of suspending the execution of sentence after conviction on account of the insanity of the convict shall be exclusive and final and shall not be reviewed or revised by or renewed before any other court or judge. No court or judge in this state shall have the power or right to suspend the execution of sentence of any other court of record on account of the insanity of the convict. This section shall not prevent the judge or court from impaneling a jury to try the question of insanity or from examining such witnesses as he may deem proper for guidance.
(Code 1907, §7179; Code 1923, §4576; Code 1940, T. 15, §427.)
Notes of Decisions
Vernon Madison v. Comm'r, Alabama Dep't of Corr., 851 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 11× “Code § 15-16-23 (providing that the trial court shall suspend the execution of a death sentence if “it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the trial court that the [prisoner] is then insane”). The Alabama trial court found that Mr.”
Madison v. Alabama, 586 U.S. 265 (2019).
· cites it 3× “Alabama told this Court in opposing certiorari that its statute covers only those with delusional disorders, and not those with dementia.”
Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986).
· cites it 2× “See Ala. Code § 15-16-23 (1982); Ariz. Rev. Stat.”
Van Tran v. State, 6 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 1999).
· cites it 4× “See Ala.Code § 15-16-23 (1995); Cal.Penal Code § 3701 ( West 1982 ); Okla Stat.”
Magwood v. Smith, 608 F. Supp. 218 (M.D. Ala. 1985).
· cites it 4× “Petitioner’s sixth claim is that Ala. Code § 15-16-23 (1975) is unconstitutional on its face and as applied.”
State v. Perry, 610 So. 2d 746 (La. 1992).
“See Ala.Code § 15-16-23 (1982); Ariz. Rev.Stat.”
Weeks v. State, 663 So. 2d 1045 (Ala. Crim. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “The appellant, a death row inmate, filed a motion in the Circuit Court for Macon County, under § 15-16-23, Code of Alabama 1975, contending that he is insane and, therefore, cannot be lawfully executed.”
Magwood v. Smith, 791 F.2d 1438 (11th Cir. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Magwood next challenges the constitutionality of Ala.Code § 15-16-23. This statute requires the trial court to suspend the execution of a person under sentence of death if “it is made to appear to the satisfaction of the trial court that the convict is then insane.”
Jones v. Smith, 599 F. Supp. 1292 (S.D. Ala. 1984).
“*1312 1983), which the Court will assume to be incorporated into § 15-16-23 for purposes of deciding this case.”
Gary Wayne Searcy v. State of Alabama., 77 So. 3d 174 (Ala. Crim. App. 2011).
“1995) (death-row inmate could not appeal a § 15-16-23, Ala.Code 1975, finding that the inmate/defendant is not insane); Hughes v.”
Martin v. State, 628 So. 2d 421 (Ala. 1993).
“Alabama’s similar statute, § 15-16-23, does not require the presence of counsel at a similar psychological examination.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.