Case Title: Johnson v. State

Citation: 255 Ind. 324, 264 N.E.2d 57

Docket Number: 1269S309

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1970-12-03T00:00:00Z

Document:
255 Ind. 324 (1970)
264 N.E.2d 57
JOHNSON
v.
STATE OF INDIANA.
No. 1269S309.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed December 3, 1970.
Bob Good, of Shelbyville, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General, R. Michael Bruney, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
ARTERBURN, J.
This is an appeal from the Hamilton Superior Court where appellant was found guilty of rape. The appellant was charged by affidavit on July 6, 1966, in the Superior Court of Hancock County with the rape of a fifteen *325 year old girl. On September 8, 1966, appellant was committed to the Division of Maximum Security of the Dr. Norman M. Beatty Memorial Hospital upon the recommendation of two court-appointed psychiatrists, who found that appellant was not competent to stand trial. After nearly three years, the hospital determined that appellant was competent to stand trial.
A motion for a change of venue from Hancock County was granted, and a trial by jury commenced on August 26, 1969, in the Hamilton Superior Court, the jury finding appellant guilty of the crime of rape.
Around 10:00 a.m. on the morning of July 5, 1966, Karen Sue Briles went out of her home in New Palestine, Indiana, to water the sheep for her father. She went into the well-house next to the barn to get water, and, leaving the well-house, she closed the door and walked towards the road. She had just taken a few steps when she was confronted by the appellant, who grabbed her. She was made to walk back to the well-house, where she was forced to open the door and was pushed inside. Although Karen screamed three or four times, she was pushed to the ground by the appellant, hitting her head on the cement foundation of the well-house. When Karen refused to take off her shorts, the appellant tore them off and proceeded to have intercourse with her.
Appellant left the well-house after Karen told him she would not talk and would wait ten minutes before she would leave. A few minutes later, Karen proceeded to go to her father and they contacted the police, who apprehended appellant a short time later near the railroad track close to the Briles' residence.
Appellant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a mistrial, which pertained to his competency to stand trial, and that the verdict of the jury is contrary to law and is not sustained by sufficient evidence.
Appellant, at the conclusion of the evidence, made an oral motion for a mistrial, stating that the evidence indicated the *326 defendant had a loss of memory which probably resulted from electric shock therapy at the Dr. Norman M. Beatty Memorial Hospital. The prosecuting attorney opposed the motion, with the contention that shortly prior to the trial the appellant had been released from the Maximum Security Division of the Dr. Norman M. Beatty Memorial Hospital by a certificate of the psychiatric staff, which found that he was competent to stand trial. A staff meeting record was also submitted to the court and, after due consideration, the court found that the defendant had sufficient comprehension to stand trial for the rape charged. Burns' § 9-1706(a) gives the court discretion in determining whether or not to have additional psychiatrists appointed for that purpose, and under the circumstances in this case, in our judgment, this was a discretionary matter with the trial court, after having heard the evidence relative thereto. We find no error in the court's overruling of such a motion.
Appellant pleaded insanity. The court accordingly appointed three psychiatrists who testified at the trial. Appellant now contends that the evidence is uncontradicted, showing that he was insane at the time of the alleged offense since the State offered no psychiatric or medical testimony directly on the issue of insanity. We cannot agree with appellant's contention that the testimony of the psychiatrists is uncontradicted. It appears to us the testimony of the psychiatrists was equivocal and qualified in character.
Dr. Donahue, a court-appointed psychiatrist, was asked by the court:
*327 Dr. Hull, to a like question propounded by the court, answered:
Dr. Schuster, a court-appointed psychiatrist, in answer to a question by the court, stated that he did not believe the defendant, at the time of the alleged act, could determine the difference between right and wrong. In the next question, however, when the court asked him if in his opinion the defendant had the ability to know and comprehend the consequences of his act, his answer was: "I don't have an opinion about that." At another point, when the court asked this same doctor whether or not in his opinion the defendant had an irresistible impulse to commit the act charged, the doctor answered: "there was not an irresistible impulse, or to my knowledge there was not an irresistible impulse."
In other words, these psychiatrists were not absolute and definite in their opinions. There was room for some equivocation and doubt. This is demonstrated by the fact that on cross examination of Dr. Schuster the following colloquy took place:
Thus, there is expert testimony that the appellant knew that his act was wrong. Additionally, when the appellant left the victim in the well-house, he asked her how he would know that she was not going to tell or talk, and she said "Well, I won't" and told him she would give him 10 minutes before *328 she would leave. These are all indicative of the knowledge of his guilt, which evidence the jury had a right to take into consideration, and which evidence, so far as we can find, the psychiatrists did not consider in their expert opinion.
In this case the evidence does show that the defendant had an awareness that his act was wrong and evil. He took the victim to a secluded spot in a well-house, rather than commit the act openly, in plain view of third parties. After it was over, he attempted to conceal the act and fled. In our opinion these factors may be considered by the jury in determining the sanity of the defendant and his knowledge that the act he was doing was wrong. The jury had the right to accept any one of the statements of the psychiatrists or any part of them, or to reject them all, where there was contradictory evidence, and to weigh all the facts in the case on the issue of sanity. We recognize that once the issue is raised, the burden of proving sanity is on the State. However, until the issue is raised and evidence is introduced to dispute or contradict sanity, the State is not required to introduce evidence to prove sanity. As long as there is evidence to support the issue of sanity, the jury has a right to reach its own conclusion on that issue. We find there is evidence here to support the jury's conclusion. Shipman v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 245, 183 N.E.2d 823; Freese v. State (1903), 159 Ind. 597, 65 N.E. 915.
Whether the appellant has a disease or defect sufficient to meet the standards of insanity is a question for the triers of the fact, to be determined from all the evidence, including both the lay and the expert testimony. The opinions of the psychiatrists in this case were not absolute in nature, and even if they were, the jury had a right to take into consideration other facts which the psychiatrists did not consider or, which the evidence fails to show, that the psychiatrists did take into consideration in determining the defendant's sanity. Hill v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 601, 251 N.E.2d 429.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
*329 Hunter, C.J., and Givan, J., concur; Jackson, J., dissents with opinion, in which DeBruler, J., concurs.
JACKSON, J.
I am unable to agree with the majority opinion herein and dissent thereto.
Appellant's motion for a new trial, omitting heading, formal parts and signature thereto, reads as follows:
In that decision the Court stated as follows:
Appellant's Assignment of Error is the single specification as follows: "The Court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial."
A factual review of the record and events leading up to the trial in this case briefly is as follows: On July 5, 1966, the defendant was arrested by the Town Marshal of the Town of New Palestine, Indiana. On July 6th he was charged by *332 affidavit in the Superior Court of Hancock County, Indiana, with the rape of one Karen Sue Briles, a child fifteen years of age. On July 6th the defendant was brought before the then Judge of the Hancock Superior Court where he was advised of his rights, and where he requested the appointment of counsel by the court, the defendant being without assets. The following day, July 7, 1966, the Court appointed pauper counsel for the defendant.
On September 1, 1966, the defendant, through counsel, filed a petition for the appointment of psychiatrists to examine the defendant as to his sanity. Thereafter the court appointed two psychiatrists.
The psychiatrists classified the defendant as mentally deficient with possible psychotic illness, and recommended that he be hospitalized in the state mental hospital. On September 8, 1966, the court committed the defendant to the Division for Maximum Security of the Norman M. Beatty Memorial Hospital. The evidence of such psychiatrists is set forth in the transcript at pages 35 through 41 and is here omitted.
The defendant spent nearly three years in the Norman Beatty Memorial Hospital, and on May 16, 1969, the Medical Director of the Beatty Hospital, Dr. Frank D. Hogle, reported that the defendant was competent to stand trial.
In his written report to Judge Lewis, Dr. Hogle advised the court that at the time of his admission the defendant had a measured I.Q. of 59, a measurement within the "moderately mental retarded range."
Following this report the defendant filed a motion for a change of venue from the county. The court granted the motion and the venue was changed to the Hamilton Superior Court at Noblesville, Indiana.
The Judge of the Hamilton Superior Court promptly set the arraignment of the defendant for June 20, 1969, and appointed new counsel for the defendant.
The defendant was arraigned on June 17, 1969, and filed *333 a plea of not guilty, and a plea of not guilty for reason of insanity. This time the court appointed three psychiatrists to examine the defendant. Judge Shields appointed Dr. Schuster and Dr. Hull, who had examined the defendant prior to his original commitment back in September, 1966, and added Dr. James Donahue, also a Marion County psychiatrist.
In answer to the defendant's plea of insanity, the State filed its answer in general denial. The trial of the defendant commenced in the Hamilton Superior Court on August 25, 1969.
The State called ten witnesses. The primary testimony was given by the alleged victim, Karen Sue Briles. Her testimony was supplemented by that of her parents, Paul and Harriet Briles, the family doctor, a laboratory technician, and five police officers who participated in the investigation. The defendant did not call any witnesses.
Judge Shields called her witnesses for the court, the three court appointed psychiatrists, Dr. Schuster, Dr. Hull and Dr. Donahue. The jury found the defendant guilty of the crime of rape.
The verdict, omitting heading and signature, reads as follows:
Following the verdict of the jury the court entered judgment thereon finding the defendant guilty of the offense of Rape.
A Pre-sentence report was ordered, and sentencing was set for 9:30 a.m. on September 12, 1969. On said date the pre-sentence report was filed and, therewith, the Probation Officer attached a report from Beatty Memorial Hospital. Sentencing followed as follows:
The testimony of the three court appointed psychiatrists may be summarized as follows: Dr. James M. Donahue testified that, in his opinion, the defendant's mental condition on the date of the alleged offense, the 5th day of July, 1966, would have been diagnosed psychiatrically as a schizophrenic illness, a type of emotional disturbance, and that, as a result, his ability to think clearly, form a rational judgment or to behave in a normal fashion was seriously affected thereby. The Doctor further testified that in his opinion the defendant was unable at that time to tell the difference between right and wrong. Dr. Dwight Schuster in response to a question stated that, in his opinion, the defendant was, on the 5th day of July, 1966, mentally incompetent, and when asked what he meant by that term answered as follows: "Well, that's, of course, a legal term we specify to indicate the defendant was not capable of understanding the nature of the charges against him or to make his own defense thereto."
Dr. Ronald Hull in response to a question as to whether or not he had an opinion as to the defendant's mental condition on the 5th day of July, 1966, at the time the alleged events occurred involving charges against the defendant of statutory rape, answered as follows:
The Doctor was asked this further question:
To which question the Doctor made the following answer:
In the case at bar there can be no question but what the record discloses that the defendant had previously been found to be of unsound mind to such a degree that he was sent to Norman Beatty Hospital, where he remained for a period of approximately three years, and during such time was held to be incapable of being tried on the criminal charge filed against him. In the case at bar, there can be no doubt of the insanity of the defendant by virtue of such confinement and previous decisions of this Court which have held that, where there is a conflict in the evidence on the question of insanity and there is sufficient evidence of this, the State is required to *336 prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was of sound mind at the time of the occurrence of the acts for which he is being charged. This burden never shifts from the State. Flowers v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 151, 160, 139 N.E.2d 185; Noelke v. State (1938), 214 Ind. 427, 433, 15 N.E.2d 950; McHargue v. State (1923), 193 Ind. 204, 211, 139 N.E. 316; Walters v. State (1915), 183 Ind. 178, 108 N.E. 583.
Under the determination made in the above cited case of Flowers v. State, supra, this Court held:
The State has wholly failed to sustain its burden in respect to the necessary proof as to the sanity of the defendant, and, therefore, the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and remanded with instructions to sustain appellant's motion for new trial.
DeBruler, J., concurs.
NOTE.  Reported in 264 N.E.2d 57.