Willie Sanders, indicted for murder and convicted of manslaughter, in the Circuit Court of Warren County, appealed from the judgment which sentenced him to serve a term of twelve years in the state penitentiary.
*877
This is the second appearance of this canse here. In the first instance, the jury found him guilty of manslaughter, and he was sentenced to serve a term of ten years in the state penitentiary. Because of error on the part of the trial court in overruling his motion for the production of a tape recording of his confession, the cause was reversed and remanded for a new trial. Sanders v. State,
A retrial of the cause occurred during the week of Seрtember 14, 1959, and again resulted in a conviction of manslaughter. During the trial, the defendant offered as witnesses on the issue of his sanity, Lillian Sanders and Curdestine Wildee, his mother and sister. The court sustained the objections of the State tо the introduction of that testimony. Subsequently, the court, after making some research, concluded that he had committed prejudicial error in excluding the testimony of these two witnesses. No sentence was imposed on thаt verdict. Several days later, the court conferred with counsel for the State and the defendant, at which time his counsel indicated an intention to file a motion for a new trial, hut said that he had not had time to do so. At any rate, no motion was filed. The court, being of the opinion that the verdict, under the circumstances, should not he permitted to stand, of his own motion, set it aside and awarded a new trial. Thereafter, during the week beginning on December 28, 1959, a jury was empaneled to try the defendant. After the selection had been completed, the defendant, in the absence of the jury, moved the court “to dismiss the above-styled and numbered indictment by reason that the сourt by ordering a new trial ex mero motu has divested itself of jurisdiction * * * and pleads double jeopardy in bar of further trial” therein. The State thereupon moved the court “to set aside the order granting a new trial * # * and to reinstаle the verdict of the jury, and judgment and sentence entered thereon.” The court *878 overruled these motions and detailed the facts in connection with what had transpired, as set forth in the preceding part of this paragraph.
At the conclusion of the State’s case, the court overruled the defendant’s motion to exclude such evidence and direct a verdict of not guilty as to both murder and manslaughter. In this trial, the defendant did not introducе Curdestine Wildee as a witness, but did offer Lillian Sanders and another.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the court again refused the request of the defendant for peremptory instruction. The cause was submitted to the jury which fоund the defendant guilty of manslaughter, and he was subsequently sentenced to a term of twelve years in the state penitentiary.
Only two alleged errors have been assigned, namely, the refusal of the court to sustain the motion of fоrmer jeopardy, and the increase in the sentence from ten years in the first trial to twelve years in the third. The appellant contends that the lower court divested itself of jurisdiction to try him a third time when the court, on its own motion, set aside the verdict of guilty on the second trial and ordered a new trial.
It is clearly settled that a court of general jurisdiction, in the absence of a statute to the contrary, has inherent power to grant a new trial, on its own motion, in civil cases. 66 C. J. S., New Trial, Section 115, p. 328; 39 Am. Jur., New Trial, Section 4, p. 34.
In 39 Am. Jur., New Trial, Section 11, p. 38, it is said: “The power of a court to order a new trial of its own motion is held to exist in criminal prosecutions as well as in civil suits. In thе exercise of this power, the essential difference between civil and criminal cases is that the court, in a criminal proceeding, must not place an additional burden on the defendant. It has been held that the court may not set aside a verdict of conviction without the consent of the accused, and that a plea *879 of former jeopardy must be sustained upon a second trial which, has been awarded on the court’s оwn motion.
“The trial judge, according to some of the decisions, has no authority of his own motion to grant a new trial in a criminal proceeding, and unless the accused makes application therefor, the court must proceed to impose sentence.”
A consideration of some of the cases will demonstrate the accuracy of the above text in pointing out the conflict in the authorities in regard to the power of the court to grant new trials on its own motion in criminal eases.
In Louisiana it has been held that the trial court has no authority to award a new trial on its own motion. State v. Williams,
In California it has been held that, since the granting of a new trial is statutory, it cannot be awarded without a motion therefor. People v. Skoff,
In Crymes v. State,
In State v. Snyder,
In State v. Harper,
In Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Endrukat, 35 L. R. A. (NS) 470, the defendant was arraigned on а charge of mnrder. His plea of present insanity was overruled, and the jury was instructed to pass on both his guilt and his present mental condition. The verdict found the accused guilty of murder in the first degree “and now a lunatic and of unsound mind.” Abоut two years later, after the accused had regained his sanity, the State moved for judgment on the verdict. But, the court, on its own motion, set aside the verdict and awarded a new trial on the ground that, since the accused wаs insane at the time of the trial, he was not legally placed on trial. "When the accused was subsequently arraigned, his counsel pled former jeopardy by reason of the former trial and the act of the court, on its own motion, in setting aside the verdict. The plea was overruled, the trial proceeded, and the defendant was found guilty of murder in the first degree. In affirming the action of the trial court, the Supreme Court held that the first verdict ought not to have been accepted, and that the court should have treated it as a nullity because there was in fact no trial at all of the charge against the accused.
In Lowe v. People,
The attention of the court has been called to no authority in this State, either constitutional, statutory, or judicial decision, which prohibits a trial judge, on his own motion, from setting aside a verdict and awarding a new trial in a criminal case where he is convinced that prejudicial error had been committed, or that the verdict is not supported by the evidence. In the present case, the trial judge was convinced that *882 be liad committed prejudicial error in refusing to admit tbe evidence of tbe two named witnesses. In other words, be was of tbe opinion that be bad made a mistake. He was determined that, as far as within him lay, be would correct bis mistake and see that tbe accused obtained that fair trial t.o which be was entitled under tbe law. He did not even pass sentenсe at all on that verdict. He set tbe same aside and gave tbe accused another opportunity to introduce tbe evidence of those witnesses, and, for that matter, any additional evidence that be might be аble to adduce. There is no basis whatever upon which it can be justly said that tbe appellant was, in any way, prejudiced by reason of tbe trial in this instance. In truth and in fact, tbe learned trial judge must be commended for bis obvious sinсerity and bis earnest endeavor to assure and see to it that tbe appellant bad a fair trial.
It would be an altogether different proposition if tbe verdict in this trial bad been for murder rather than for manslaughter. Such would аlso be true in those instances where tbe jury fixes tbe punishment, and a second jury might assess a heavier punishment. Tbe penalty for manslaughter is prescribed by Section 2233, Code of 1942, Recompiled. Tbe maximum therefor is twenty years. The trial judge has a wide discretion in determining the proper sentence to be imposed on one who is found guilty of this crime. It is true that, in tbe first trial, tbe appellant was sentenced to serve a term of ten years. But in that cause tbe judgment was reversed at bis instance. This Court cannot say that tbe trial judge was in error in pronouncing a sentence of twelve years.
Tbe judgment of tbe trial court must therefore be affirmed.
Affirmed.