Brooks v. State, 279 S.E.2d 649 (Ga. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
Brooks v. State, 279 S.E.2d 649 (Ga. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
33 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lebbage v. State (gactapp, 2000-06-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lebbage v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Brooks v. State, 247 Ga. 744, 745 ( 279 SE2d 649 ) (1981); see also Kirkland v. State, 166 Ga. App. 478, 481 (1) ( 304 SE2d 561 ) (1983).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Cornelius v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
Brooks v. State, 247 Ga. 744, 745 ( 279 SE2d 649 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Keener v. State
Ga. · 1985 · confidence medium
In Moses v. State, 245 Ga. 180, 181 ( 263 SE2d 916 ), cert. den. 449 U. S. 849 (101 SC 138, 66 LE2d 60) (1980), the court said: “Jurors are not bound by the opinions of either lay witnesses or expert witnesses as to the question of sanity and they may rely on the basic presumption existing under our law. [Cits, omitted.] The jury is free to reject expert testimony as to sanity and may find an accused sane even without positive testimony as to sanity.” See also Brooks v. State, 247 Ga. 744, 745 ( 279 SE2d 649 ) (1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Davenport v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1984 · confidence medium
That section provides, in part: “Whenever a plea is filed that a defendant in a criminal case is mentally incompetent to stand trial, it shall be the duty of the court to cause the issue of the defendant’s mental competency to stand trial to be tried first by a special jury.” This hearing “is an inquiry into whether the defendant at the time of trial is capable of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings against him and is capable of assisting his attorney with his defense.” Brooks v. State, 247 Ga. 744, 745 ( 279 SE2d 649 ).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Peek v. State
Ga. · 1982 · confidence medium
In Brooks v. State, 247 Ga. 744, 745 ( 279 SE2d 649 ) (1981), we reaffirmed the rule that “ ‘[jJurors are not bound by the opinions of either lay witnesses or expert witnesses as to the question of sanity and they may rely on the basic presumption [of sanity] existing under our law. [Code Ann. § 26-606.] The jury is free to reject expert testimony as to sanity and may find an accused sane even without positive testimony as to sanity.’ ” See Moses v. State, 245 Ga. 180, 181 ( 263 SE2d 916 ) (1980).
cited Cited "see" Neal v. State
Ga. Ct. App. · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See Brooks v. State, 157 Ga. App. 650 ( 278 SE2d 463 ), s.c. affirmed in 247 Ga. 744 , 745 ( 280 SE2d 837 ); Strickland v. State, 247 Ga. 219, 220-221 (3) ( 275 SE2d 29 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Arnold v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Moses v. State, 245 Ga. 180, 181 ( 263 SE2d 916 ), U. S. cert. den. 449 U. S. 849 ; see also Brooks v. State, 247 Ga. 744, 745 ( 279 SE2d 649 ); and Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 66, 71 ( 295 SE2d 727 ).” Moses v. State, 167 Ga. App. 556, 558 ( 307 SE2d 35 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Moses v. State (2×)
Ga. Ct. App. · 1983 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Moses v. State, 245 Ga. 180, 181 ( 263 SE2d 916 ), U. S. cert. den. 449 U. S. 849 ; see also Brooks v. State, 247 Ga. 744, 745 ( 279 SE2d 649 ); and Brown v. State, 250 Ga. 66, 71 ( 295 SE2d 727 ). *559 It was the opinion of the staff of Central State Hospital that the defendant is not now “mentally ill” and does not meet the criteria for continued involuntary treatment.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brown v. State (2×)
Ga. · 1982 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare, Brooks v. State, 247 Ga. 744 ( 279 SE2d 649 ) (1981). *69 Various lay witnesses who had the opportunity to observe appellant before and shortly after the offense testified that in their opinion, appellant was sane and knew right from wrong at the time he was observed.
Brooks
v.
the State
37524.
Supreme Court of Georgia.
Jun 30, 1981.
279 S.E.2d 649
Lorenzo Brooks, pro se., Lamar Cole, District Attorney, Richard W. Shelton, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
Undercofler.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
Undercofler, Justice.

We granted certiorari in this case [1] to resolve an apparent conflict in our criminal cases which address the presumption of sanity.[*745] Handspike v. State, 203 Ga. 115 (45 SE2d 662) (1947) holds, as stated in the headnote, “When the defendant in a murder case pleads insanity at the time of the homicide, as a defense, and introduces evidence sufficient to overcome the presumption of sanity, and there is no evidence that he was sane at the time of the commission of the offense, a verdict of guilty is unauthorized.” On the other hand, cases exemplified by Moses v. State, 245 Ga. 180, 181 (263 SE2d 916) (1980) hold, “Jurors are not bound by the opinions of either lay witnesses or expert witnesses as to the question of sanity and they may rely on the basic presumption existing under our law. [Cits.] The jury is free to reject expert testimony as to sanity and may find an accused sane even without positive testimony as to sanity. [Cits.]”

Decided June 30, 1981.

Handspike v. State, supra, was distinguished in Boyd v. State, 207 Ga. 567 (63 SE2d 394) (1951) by the same author. It was held there that Handspike had previously been found to be insane by a jury on a special plea of insanity and there was no adjudication prior to trial that he had been restored to sanity, and thus the mental condition once proved to exist was presumed to continue subject to being rebutted by proof. See Carter v. State, 225 Ga. 310 (168 SE2d 158) (1969); Johnson v. State, 235 Ga. 486, 490 (220 SE2d 448) (1975).

In Ross v. State, 217 Ga. 569, 570 (124 SE2d 280) (1962), the defendant, after being found insane on a special plea, “. . . was released back to the Dougherty County authorities for trial, pursuant to law.” This court held there is a presumption “. . . that the defendant was restored to sanity after being ‘discharged in the manner prescribed by law.’ ” See Grace v. State, 231 Ga. 113 (200 SE2d 248) (1973); Gilbert v. State, 235 Ga. 501 (220 SE2d 262) (1975); Durham v. State, 239 Ga. 697 (238 SE2d 334) (1977).

It should be noted that there is a difference in the issues raised by a special plea of insanity at the time of the trial and a general plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. The special plea is an inquiry into whether the defendant at the time of trial is capable of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings against him and is capable of assisting his attorney with his defense. The general plea is an inquiry into whether the defendant could distinguish right from wrong at the time of the crime.

After a careful review of the above cases we conclude that Handspike v. State, supra, has been overruled sub silentio and we now overrule it expressly. We reaffirm our holdings in Gilbert v. State, supra, and Moses v. State, supra.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. [*746] Lorenzo Brooks, pro se. Lamar Cole, District Attorney, Richard W. Shelton, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
1

Brooks v. State, 157 Ga. App. 650 (278 SE2d 465) (1981).