Cf. Canizio v. New York, 327 U.S. 82, 85, 86, 66 S.Ct. 452, 90 L.Ed. 545 [ (1946) ].’ ”Barnett v. State, 339 So.2d 1082, 1086–1087 (Ala.Crim.App.1976) (quoting Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114 (1961))). Barnett and Hamilton are capital cases in which a death sentence was imposed.

We hold that under the facts shown in this record the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling appellant's motion to set aside the verdict of the jury and sentence of the court, and grant appellant a new trial so that he could present the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity. Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52, 82 S.Ct. 157, 7 L.Ed.2d 114; Barnett v. State, Ala.Cr.App. 339 So.2d 1082; Morrell v. State, 136 Ala. 44, 34 So. 208; Garrett v. State, 248 Ala. 612, 29 So.2d 8; Section 15-16-1 of the Code Of Alabama, 1975. There being no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is due to be, and is hereby affirmed.