Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/383/375/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 04:07:53+00:00

Document:
Respondent was convicted in 1959 of murdering his common law wife, and given a life sentence. It was conceded at trial that he had shot and killed her, but counsel claimed that respondent was insane at the time of the incident, and also not competent to stand trial. It was uncontradicted that respondent had a long history of disturbed behavior, had been confined as a psychopathic patient, and had committed acts of violence, including the killing of his infant son and an attempted suicide. Four defense witnesses testified that respondent was insane. The trial court declined rebuttal medical testimony as to respondent's sanity, deeming sufficient a stipulation that a doctor would testify that, when respondent was examined a few months before trial, he knew the nature of the charges and could cooperate with his counsel. The trial court's rejection of contentions as to respondent's sanity was challenged on appeal as a deprivation of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. The State Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on the grounds that no hearing on mental capacity to stand trial had been requested and that the evidence was insufficient to require the trial court to conduct a sanity hearing sua sponte or to raise a "reasonable doubt" as to respondent's sanity at the time of the homicide. This Court denied certiorari. The District Court denied respondent's subsequently filed petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the unduly hurried trial did not provide a fair opportunity for development of facts on the insanity issues, and remanded the case to the District Court for a limited hearing as to the sanity of respondent at the time of the homicide and as to whether he was constitutionally entitled to a hearing upon his competence to stand trial.
1. The evidence raised a sufficient doubt as to respondent's competence to stand trial so that respondent was deprived of due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment by the trial court's failure to afford him a hearing on that issue. Pp. 383 U. S. 378-386.
(a) The conviction of a legally incompetent defendant violates due process. Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961. P. 383 U. S. 378.
(b) the record shows that respondent did not waive the defence of incompetence to stand trial. P. 383 U. S. 384.
(c) In view of evidence raising a doubt on the competence issue, the court was required to impanel a jury and conduct a sanity hearing, and could not rely in lieu thereof on respondent's demeanor at trial or on the stipulated medical testimony. Pp. 383 U. S. 385-386.
2. In view of the difficulty of retrospectively determining the issue of an accused's competence to stand trial (particularly where, as here, the time lapse is over six years), a hearing limited to that issue will not suffice; respondent must therefore be discharged unless the State gives him a new trial within a reasonable time. P. 383 U. S. 387.
345 F.2d 691, affirmed in part and remanded.
"should be ordered released, but such release may be delayed for a reasonable time . . . to permit the State of Illinois to grant Robinson a new trial."
The State concedes that the conviction of an accused person while he is legally incompetent violates due process, Bishop v. United States, 350 U.S. 961 (1956), and that state procedures must be adequate to protect this right. It insists, however, that Robinson intelligently waived this issue by his failure to request a hearing on his competence at the trial, and further that, on the basis of the evidence before the trial judge, no duty rested upon him to order a hearing sua sponte. A determination of these claims necessitates a detailed discussion of the conduct of the trial and the evidence touching upon the question of Robinson's competence at that time.
"I went to him and hugged him to ask him what was wrong, and he went to pushing me back, telling me to get back, somebody was going to shoot him, somebody was going to shoot him."
from the Hines Hospital. Patient began presenting symptoms of mental illness about a year ago, at which time he came to his mother's house. He requested money, and, when it was refused, he suddenly kicked a hole in her bar."
"Was drinking and went to the Psychopathic Hospital. He imagined he heard voices, voices of men and women, and he also saw things. He saw a little bit of everything. He saw animals, snakes, and elephants, and this lasted for about two days. He went to Hines. They sent him to the Psychopathic Hospital. The voices threatened him. He imagined someone was outside with a pistol aimed at him. He was very, very scared, and he tried to call the police, and his aunt then called the police. He thought he was going to be harmed. And he says this all seems very foolish to him now. Patient is friendly, and tries to cooperate."
"He went through an acute toxic episode from which he has some insight. He had been drinking heavily . I am wondering possibly he isn't schizophrenic. I think he has recovered from this condition. I have seen the wife, and she is in a pathetic state. I have no objection to giving him a try."
says he didn't do anything. I noticed that he wasn't at all himself."
The grandfather also related that, one night when Robinson was staying at his house, Robinson and his wife had a "ruckus," which caused his wife to flee to the grandfather's bedroom. Robinson first tried to kick down the door. He then grabbed all of his wife's clothes from their room and threw them out in the yard, intending to set them on fire. Robinson got so unruly that the grandfather called the police to lock him up.
In 1953, Robinson, then separated from his wife, brought their 18-month-old son to Mrs. Calhoun's home and asked permission to stay there for a couple of days. She observed that he was highly nervous, prancing about and staring wildly. While she was at work the next day, Robinson shot and killed his son and attempted suicide by shooting himself in the head. It appeared that, after Robinson shot his son, he went to a nearby park and tried to take his life again by jumping into a lagoon. By his mother's description, he "was wandering around" the park, and walked up to a policeman and "asked him for a cigarette." It was stipulated that he went to the South Park Station on March 10, 1953, and said that he wanted to confess to a crime. When he removed his hat, the police saw that he had shot himself in the head. They took him to the hospital for treatment of his wound.
back to see why they had not taken him into custody because of "the way he was fighting around in the streets, people were beating him up." She made another complaint a month or so before Robinson killed Flossie May Ward. However, no warrant was ever served on him.
The killing occurred about 10:30 p.m. at a small barbecue house where Flossie May Ward worked. At that time, there were 10 customers in the restaurant, six of them sitting at the counter. It appears from the record that Robinson entered the restaurant with a gun in his hand. As he approached the counter, Flossie May said, "Don't start nothing tonight." After staring at her for about a minute, he walked to the rear of the room and, with the use of his hand, leaped over the counter. He then rushed back toward the front of the restaurant, past two other employees working behind the counter, and fired once or twice at Flossie May. She jumped over the counter and ran out the front door with Robinson in pursuit. She was found dead on the sidewalk. [Footnote 3] Robinson never spoke a word during the three-to-four minute episode.
Dr. Haines' testimony as to his opinion whether this man is sane or insane. It is possible that the man might be insane and know the nature of the charge or be able to cooperate with his counsel. I think it should be in evidence, your Honor, that Dr. Haines' opinion is that this defendant was sane when he was examined."
However, the court told the prosecutor, "You have enough in the record now. I don't think you need Dr. Haines." In his summation, defense counsel emphasized "our defense is clear. . . . It is as to the sanity of the defendant at the time of the crime and also as to the present time." The court, after closing argument by the defense, found Robinson guilty and sentenced him to prison for his natural life.
"defendant should have the opportunity to have all issues which may be determinative of his guilt tried by a state judge or a state jury under appropriate state procedures, which conform to the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment."
At 365 U. S. 547-548.
It has been pressed upon us that it would be sufficient for the state court to hold a limited hearing as to Robinson's mental competence at the time he was tried in 1959. If he were found competent, the judgment against him would stand. But we have previously emphasized the difficulty of retrospectively determining an accused's competence to stand trial. Dusky v. United States, 362 U. S. 402 (1960). The jury would not be able to observe the subject of their inquiry, and expert witnesses would have to testify solely from information contained in the printed record. That Robinson's hearing would be held six years after the fact aggravates these difficulties. This need for concurrent determination distinguishes the present case from Jackson v. Denno, 378 U. S. 368 (1964), where we held that, on remand, the State could discharge its constitutional obligation by giving the accused a separate hearing on the voluntariness of his confession.
If the State elects to retry Robinson, it will, of course, be open to him to raise the question of his competence to stand trial at that time and to request a special hearing thereon. In the event a sufficient doubt exists as to his present competence, such a hearing must be held. If found competent to stand trial, Robinson would have the usual defenses available to an accused.
The case is remanded to the District Court for action consistent with this opinion.
Nor do we pass on the contention that Robinson was denied his Sixth Amendment rights by the trial judge's refusal to issue summonses for material witnesses.
These witnesses were Miss Willie Ceola Peterson, Robinson's mother; Mr. William H. Langham, his grandfather; Mrs. Helen Calhoun, his aunt; and Mrs. Alice Moore, a family friend.
The Reverend Elmer Clemons was also shot and killed in the fracas. The indictment covering that offense was dismissed at the close of the trial in question.
"I asked him what his name was, and he said, 'My name is Ted.' I said, 'What is your real name?' And he said, 'Theodore Robinson.' Then I asked him -- I told him he was under arrest, and he said, 'For what?' I said, 'Well, you are supposed to be wanted for killing two people on the south side.' I asked him did he know anything about it. He said, 'No, I don't know what you are talking about.' So then I asked him where he lived, and he said, 'I don't live no place.'"
"I said, 'What do you mean you don't live no place?' He said, 'That's what I said.'"
"So then pretty soon asked him again, and he said, 'Sometimes I stay with my mother.' And I said, 'Where does she live?' He said, 'Some address on East 44th Street.'"
"So then we took him on to the 27th District, and, while we were making the arrest slip, asked him again his address, and he said he lived at 7320 South Parkway. That's about all he said. He didn't know anything about any killing or anything."
"Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether or not presently he is sane or insane?"
"A. He is sick. He is insane."
"Q. First of all, do you have an opinion?"
"Q. What is your opinion as to his present sanity? . . ."
"A. He is mentally sick."
Although defense counsel phrased his questions and argument in terms of Robinson's present insanity, we interpret his language as necessarily placing in issue the question of Robinson's mental competence to stand trial. Counsel was simply borrowing the terminology of the relevant Illinois statutes and decisions. The state law in effect at the time of Robinson's trial differentiated between lack of criminal responsibility and competence to stand trial, but used "insanity" to describe both concepts. Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 38, §§ 592, 593 (1963). The judges likewise phrased their decisions only in terms of sanity and insanity. See, e.g., People v. Baker, 26 Ill.2d 484, 187 N.W.2d 227 (1962). The statutory provisions and terminology in this field have now been clarified by the enactment of an article dealing with the "competency of accused." Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 38, §§ 104-1 to 104-3 (1963), as amended by the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963. Even if counsel may also have meant to refer to the statutory provisions dealing with commitment for present insanity, Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 38, § 592 (1963), this fact would not affect the determination that counsel's words raised a question as to competence that the trial judge should have considered.
Moreover, as the Court of Appeals stressed, the trial judge did not give Robinson an opportunity to introduce expert testimony on the question of his sanity. The judge denied counsel's request for a continuance of several hours in order to secure the appearance of a psychiatrist from the Illinois Psychiatric Institute.
"In this case, which is a very serious case, the defendant has been able to cooperate with counsel with some reservations. . . . However, I do not feel that this present . . . lucidity bears on the issue of his sanity at the time of the crime and his sanity at the present time. I think the words sanity and insanity, the words are legal terms. I think that, presently, Mr. Theodore Robinson is in a lucid interval. I believe that, from the witness stand, you have heard testimony to indicate and prove that Mr. Theodore Robinson is presently insane. . . ."
The facts now canvassed by this Court to support its constitutional holding were fully sifted by the Illinois Supreme Court. I cannot agree that the state court's unanimous appraisal was erroneous, and still less that it was error of constitutional proportions.
The Court appears to hold that a defendant's present incompetence may become sufficiently manifest during a trial that it denies him due process for the trial court to fail to conduct a hearing on that question on its own initiative. I do not dissent from this very general proposition, and I agree also that such an error is not "waived" by failure to raise it, and that it may entitle the defendant to a new trial without further proof. Waiver is not an apposite concept where we premise a defendant so deranged that he cannot oversee his lawyers. Since our further premise is that the trial judge should and could have avoided the error, a new trial seems not too drastic an exaction in view of the proof problems arising after a significant lapse of time. [Footnote 2/1] However, I do not believe the facts known to the trial judge in this case suggested Robinson's incompetence at time of trial with anything like the force necessary to make out a violation of due process in the failure to pursue the question.
"the 'test must be whether . . . [the defendant] has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding -- and whether he has a rational, as well as factual, understanding of the proceedings against him.'"
and lower courts have recognized that this is by no means the same test as those which determine criminal responsibility at the the of the crime. [Footnote 2/2] The question, then, is not whether the facts before the trial judge suggested that Robinson's crime was an insane act, but whether they suggested he was incompetent to stand trial.
the nature of the charge and is able to cooperate with his counsel." The conclusive factor is that Robinson's own lawyers, the two men who apparently had the closest contact with the defendant during the proceedings, never suggested he was incompetent to stand trial and never moved to have him examined on incompetency grounds during trial; [Footnote 2/5] indeed, counsel's remarks to the jury seem best read as an affirmation of Robinson's present "lucidity" which would be highly peculiar if Robinson had been unable to assist properly in his defense. See p. 383 U. S. 386, n 8, ante, of the Court's opinion.
Thus, I cannot agree with the Court that the requirements of due process were violated by the failure of the trial judge, who had opportunities for personal observation of the defendant that we do not possess, to halt the trial and hold a competency hearing on his own motion.
Several other grounds have been urged as a basis for habeas corpus relief for Robinson. These other grounds are understandably not discussed in the Court's opinion, and I think it is sufficient for me to say I do not believe that they warrant further proceedings. In my view, the Court of Appeals should be reversed, and the District Court's dismissal of the petition reinstated.
The constitutional violation alleged is the failure to make an inquiry. In the more usual case, the simple claim that a defendant was convicted while incompetent during the trial, there is, of course, no proof of a constitutional violation until that incompetence is established in appropriate proceedings.
See James v. Boles, 339 F.2d 431; United States v. Kendrick, 331 F.2d 110; Lyles v. United States, 103 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 254 F.2d 725.
At the time Robinson's mother and Mrs. Calhoun made the statements noted in the Court's opinion, p. 383 U. S. 383, n 5, ante, they also stated Robinson did not know the difference between right and wrong. Counsel's statement, too, quoted by the Court at p. 383 U. S. 386, n 8, ante, was directed to acquittal, not postponement. See n 5, infra. Mrs. Moore, a family friend, responded to the question on Robinson's sanity by saying: "When he is in those moods, I think he is insane; when he is in those moods, because he is terrible."
"[T]he record reflects several instances where defendant displayed his ability to assist in the conduct of his defense in a reasonable and rational manner. Typical instances of when defendant displayed mental alertness, as well as understanding and knowledge of the proceeding, appear in his remarks to the court as follows:"
"Your honor, they were on the State's witness list and the State said they have several witnesses. They produced two. For what reason, I don't know, but I am on trial here, and I would like to be given every consideration, and I would like that the court be adjourned until tomorrow morning to give me time to confer with counsel for the calling of witnesses."
"Again, when discussing witnesses with the court, defendant said:"
"Well, the police are contending that the clothes they have found in Moore's apartment was mine. That is the reason at the beginning of trial, I asked the attorney to have a pretrial preliminary to determine the admissibility and validity of the evidence that the State was intending to use against me."
22 Ill.2d at 168, 174 N.E.2d at 823.
The record, in my view, does not bear out any suggestion that Robinson's counsel apprised the trial judge that he believed Robinson incompetent to stand trial, even granting that "insane" was a synonym for "incompetent" under then-existing state law (pp. 383 U. S. 384-385, n 6, ante). Under Illinois law, as one would naturally expect, incompetence at the time of trial has been a ground not for acquitting the defendant, but for postponing his trial; and nowhere in the record does Robinson's counsel even hint to the judge that he believes the trial should be deferred or abated because his client is not fit to continue. The ready explanation for counsel's references to "present insanity," apart from emphasizing Robinson's general lack of criminal responsibility, is that Illinois law provided that one acquitted on grounds of insanity at the time of the crime shall by the same verdict be found cured of or still afflicted with "such insanity" and committed in the latter instance. Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 38, § 592 (1959).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 592
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 592