Case ID: so2d_293/html/0776-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "MANN, Chief Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
    No. 72-539.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
    May 1, 1974.
    James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and D. Turner Matthews and Elliott C. Met-calfe, Jr., Asst. Public Defenders, Braden-ton, for appellant; John Hall, pro se.
    Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Frank B. Kes-sler and Guy E. Labalme, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
   MANN, Chief Judge.

Two psychiatrists testified that Hall was insane at the time of the crime charged. One psychiatrist, who had not examined Hall, testified on the basis of hypothetical questions fully supported by the evidence that Hall’s behavior was not psychotic. Thus, the case is one like Farrell v. State, Fla.1958, 101 So.2d 130, in which the defense has presented sufficient testimony to raise a reasonable doubt as to the defendant’s sanity. It is governed, however, by Byrd v. State, Fla.1974, - So.2d -, Opinion filed February 21, 1974, in which our Supreme Court held that under these circumstances the presentation by the State of evidence sufficient to warrant a jury finding that the defendant was not legally insane requires affirmance of his conviction.

Affirmed.

HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.