Title: State v. Folk

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

247 P.2d 165 (1952) 56 N.M. 583 STATE v. FOLK. No. 5341. Supreme Court of New Mexico. August 5, 1952. McAtee & Toulouse, Albuquerque, for appellant. Joe L. Martinez, Atty. Gen., Hilario Rubio, Ass't Atty. Gen., Frank B. Zinn, Ass't Atty. Gen., for appellee. COORS, Justice. The defendant was found guilty of charges of rape and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and sentenced to serve not less than ten years nor more than fifteen years on the count for rape and five years on the count for contributing to the delinquency of a minor, the sentences to run concurrently. While various claims of error are made in this appeal, and some of them with considerable merit, in the view we take of the case, it is necessary to consider only one of the issues raised, to-wit: That the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to consider or submit to the jury the question whether the defendant was sane or insane at the time of trial. Our statute, Sec. 42-1303, N.M.S.A. 1941 Comp., provides: The facts necessary for a determination of the issue here raised are as follows: On July 29, 1949, an information was filed in the District Court of Sandoval County, New Mexico, accusing the defendant in two counts of rape and contributing to the delinquency of a minor on the 19th or 20th of July, 1949. By stipulation the venue was changed from Sandoval to Bernalillo County and the defendant waived his right to a preliminary hearing. Thereafter an insanity proceeding was instituted (being Cause No. 1200 in the District Court of Bernalillo County) against the defendant upon affidavit of the assistant district attorney who assisted in the trial of the present case. The defendant, after due hearing, was adjudged insane on November 1, 1949, by the district judge who heard the present case and by him committed to the state insane asylum. On March 2, 1950, the defendant was released by the superintendent of the asylum on parole to a guardian for 90 days. It is to be noted that he was not discharged from the asylum as one whose sanity was recovered, and his release on parole was apparently effected under the provisions of Sec. 37-220, N.M.S.A. 1941 Comp., the pertinent provisions of which are as follows: While this statute seemingly does not purport to authorize the release on parole of patients charged with the commission of criminal offenses, that procedure was followed in this instance and the validity of the release in this manner is not here in question. No further action was taken by the district court in Cause No. 1200, the insanity proceeding, and the defendant was proceeded against under the information heretofore described. On March 27, 1950, he entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. The cause came on for hearing on that date and immediately after the witnesses were sworn and prior to the giving of any testimony counsel for the defendant orally moved for continuation of the case in the following language: In response to this motion the record reads: The taking of testimony was then commenced and after three witnesses had testified for the state, defendant's counsel moved further proceedings be suspended because of the then insanity of the defendant and the motion was overruled. We quote: At a further point in the trial the defense moved the introduction in evidence of the file in the insanity proceeding and the file in an incompetency proceeding likewise handled by that court wherein a guardian had been appointed for the estate of the defendant and the following colloquy was had: It is not here contended the previous insanity proceeding is res judicata or conclusive on the issue of the defendant's mental condition at the time of the trial. We have included the arguments of counsel and the remarks of the court upon this subject, however, not for the purpose of ruling on the evidentiary admissibility of the insanity and incompetency proceedings as such, but rather to show the defense counsel tied in to some extent at least his earlier motions at this later stage of the trial. We take this opportunity to say, however, that we recognize that in most jurisdictions there is no objection to the introduction of the record of an insanity proceeding or one for the appointment of a guardian or committee to handle the estate of an incompetent person where it is sought to establish that person as a defendant in a criminal prosecution is either insane at the time of trial, or was insane at the time the offense was committed, if the earlier proceeding were had at a time not too remote, which question would, of course, go to its weight and not to its competency. See 5 Wigmore, Evidence Sec. 1671(a) (3rd ed.) and Weihofen, Insanity As A Defense In Criminal Law, ch. 5, sec. 3, at p. 249, and authorities cited in those texts. In only two cases has our court been called upon to rule with reference to the general problem here raised. In the first of these, Territory v. Kennedy, 15 N.M. 556, 110 P. 854, the defendant was tried and found guilty of murder in the first degree. The defense was insanity at the time of commission of the act; but, during the course of the trial the issue as to defendant being insane at the time of trial was raised. Although it does not appear how the issue was raised in the opinion, our examination of the transcript filed on that appeal shows that during the course of examination of a physician the question was posed whether the defendant was sane at the time of trial. After discussion between counsel and the court the question was withdrawn but the question had been raised in the mind of the trial judge, and on conclusion of the cross examination of the witness, the court, on its own motion excused the jury and questioned the witness. After court was reconvened the court made the statement it was agreed by counsel and the court that the issue of present sanity is admissible in the proceeding as well as the inquiry as to sanity or insanity at the time of the commission of the offense. Upon conclusion of the testimony the jury was instructed on the question of whether or not the defendant was presently insane. On appeal the defendant was granted a new trial on other grounds, however, it is significant to note the procedure of the trial court upon the question being raised as to defendant's sanity at the time of trial which procedure was specifically approved in the opinion. We quote therefrom as follows: The second of the New Mexico cases touching upon this subject arose upon the following facts: The defendant was tried and convicted by the District Court of Dona Ana County upon a charge of murder in the first degree and sentenced to be hanged. He appealed to this court and we affirmed the conviction. Thereafter the Governor granted a reprieve and the defendant was moved from the Dona Ana County jail and placed in the state penitentiary. Then a writ de lunatico inquiriendo was issued from the District Court of Santa Fe County to inquire into the sanity of the defendant and he was decreed by judgment of that court to be insane. Following this proceeding the defendant filed a petition in this court setting up the adjudiction of insanity and requested a stay of execution. This court conducted an inquiry and in its opinion, In re Smith, 25 N.M. 48, 176 P. 819, 822, 3 A.L.R. 83, stated, among other things: From these cases and our statute, Sec. 42-1303, supra, we derive the following rules for decision: No particular mode or manner of procedure must be followed in raising the issue of the insanity of a defendant existing at the time of arraignment, trial, judgment or execution, so long as there is a sufficient showing to create a reasonable doubt as to the sanity of the accused; and upon the issue being raised the accused is by right under our statute, Sec. 42-1303, supra, entitled to have the jury pass upon it. In Weihofen, Insanity As A Defense In Criminal Law, pp. 333, 334, the common law rule is stated as follows: Accord: 14 Am.Jur., Criminal Law, Sec. 44, p. 801; Annotation 142 A.L.R. p. 961, et seq.; 44 C.J.S., Insane Persons, § 127, p. 283, 284; 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 940, p. 233. The rule of the common law is preserved in this state by Sec. 42-1303, supra, subject to the modification as noted in Territory v. Kennedy, supra, that the trial judge may no longer decide the matter himself, but must, if doubt exists, submit the matter to the jury. Indeed, the compulsion behind the common law rule is as strong today as ever. A man should not arbitrarily or capriciously be denied upon his day in court a trial in which he may competently bring to his defense any fact of which he may be apprised; and if he suffers from mental disorder at that time so as not to understand the nature of the proceedings against him, or lacks the ability to communicate to his counsel any elements in his defense, he is denied that right. The trial judge is not totally without discretion in this matter, even under our statute. It is his province to rule whether or not a reasonable doubt can be said to exist as to the sanity of an accused, and this determination will not be lightly overturned. All the authorities recognize the issue must be raised in good faith and supported by a showing sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to the sanity of an accused. While the motion for continuance is not entirely free from criticism, doubtless the defense counsel took into consideration in making the motion that the judge hearing the present case had, less than five months before, regularly adjudged the defendant insane and committed him to the State Insane Asylum, and the further fact the insanity proceeding was instituted by the assistant district attorney appearing for the state in the present case, and, therefore, assumed he need not tender a more formal and fully supported motion. We view such an assumption as not unreasonable in these circumstances. In addition to this motion, however, was the motion for a suspension during trial and the attempted introduction in evidence of the record of the insanity proceeding and that for appointment of a guardian for the estate of the accused. Furthermore, four psychiatrists testified upon the trial that in their opinion the defendant was insane when examined by them five months before and was afflicted with a mental disorder which in the general course grows more acute with the passage of time. There was some disagreement in their diagnoses of the defendant. All of the psychiatrists felt upon first examination that he was suffering from paresis. Negative results from tests of spinal fluid led one of them to believe the defendant had cerebral arteriosclerosis psychosis, but the others still felt he was paretic. Whereas the prognosis for paresis is "poor," that for cerbral arteriosclerosis psychosis is "much more poor." We might also note the district attorney himself referred to the defendant in his argument to the jury as a "sex maniac." The word "maniac" is defined by Webster's New International Dictionary, (2d ed.) as "A raving lunatic; a madman." Under these facts it was unquestionably an abuse of the trial court's discretion to refuse to inquire into the present mental condition of the defendant and submit the issue to the jury. In fact, the prior adjudication of insanity and the release from the insane asylum not as restored to sanity, but merely on a limited parole, raised a presumption that the defendant was insane. This presumption may be rebutted, but until that has been done, he cannot be found either guilty or innocent of the crime charged. Deeb v. State, 118 Fla. 88, 158 So. 880; Wilhite v. State, 158 Ark. 290, 250 S.W. 31; *172 People v. Maynard, 347 Ill. 422, 179 N.E. 833; State v. Davis, 27 S.C. 609, 4 S.E. 567; Ashley v. Pescor, 8 Cir., 147 F.2d 318; Robinson v. Johnston, D.C., 50 F. Supp. 774; Honaker v. Cox, D.C., 51 F. Supp. 829. As to the effect of the presumption generally, see annotations in 7 A.L.R. 568; 68 A.L.R. 1309; and 142 A.L.R. 961, at page 992, et seq. As the other claimed errors may not be repeated in the event of another trial, they will not be discussed. For the court's error in failing and refusing to submit to the jury the question of defendant's insanity at the time of trial, the case is reversed and remanded with directions to the district court to grant the defendant a new trial. It is so ordered. LUJAN, C.J., and SADLER, McGHEE and COMPTON, JJ., concur.