Case Name: Catherine HOPKINS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1959-12-11
Citations: 275 F.2d 155
Docket Number: No. 14939
Parties: Catherine HOPKINS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 275
Pages: 155–163

Head Matter:
Catherine HOPKINS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 14939.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Sept. 10, 1959.
Decided Dec. 11, 1959.
Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied Jan. 19, 1960.
Mr. Stanley M. Dietz, Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Nathan J. Paulson, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., and Carl W. Belcher, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Edgerton, Washington and Bastían, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
EDGERTON, Circuit Judge.
Appellant was convicted of attempting an abortion, which resulted in death, on or about March 3, 1956. She waived trial by jury and was tried by a judge.
She was indicted June 4, 1956, and pleaded not guilty June 8, 1956. But she was not tried until 29 months later, in November 1958. She spent two months of the intervening time in the District of Columbia General Hospital, and more than two years in the government mental hospital of St. Elizabeths.
At appellant's trial, Dr. Schultz, Chief Psychiatrist at the District of Columbia General Hospital, testified that she was admitted there June 26, 1956, and that her "discharge diagnosis was schizophrenic reaction, schizo-effective type." On August 30, 1956, she was transferred to St. Elizabeths. Dr. Pet-tit, Clinical Director for Branch 1 at St. Elizabeths, testified that her condition was diagnosed there as "schizophrenic reaction, chronic undifferentiated type", and that when she came under his observation in November, 1956, he concurred in this diagnosis.
In April, 1958, appellant was transferred to the "chronic division" of St. Elizabeths. Dr. Hoye of that division testified that "She was suffering from schizophrenia reaction, chronic undifferentiated type." After reviewing her case history, Dr. Hoye concluded that she had been "suffering from schizophrenic illness since 1952."
Thus three government psychiatrists, in two government hospitals where appellant was long under observation, beginning soon after the attempted abortion, testified that she was schizophrenic. No psychiatrist testified that she was not schizophrenic.
Appellant's mother testified that after an ear operation when appellant was 8 years old, "She would stay home all day long and wouldn't say anything to me. I would ask her different questions. She wouldn't talk to me, you know. She just acted plum different." She did not play with other children as her sister did. "When she got fifteen and a little older she still told me she couldn't sleep at night and told me she heard voices. She wanted to jump out of the window. She got on the floor and commenced pulling her hair out. When she went to jump out the window my son-in-law and I grabbed her. She called the undertaker and sent him to a girl friend's home on Eleventh Street. She sent flowers to the girl, and told me the girl was dead. And I called and they said she wasn't dead."' In 1951 the mother took appellant to D. C. General Hospital for mental observation.
Laymen who had no previous acquaintance with appellant, but talked with her at various times after the attempted abortion, testified that they observed no abnormal conduct and thought her sane. Two doctors who were not psychiatrists gave similar testimony in similar circumstances. It does not appear that either had occasion to, or did, undertake a mental examination of appellant. Accordingly both made it clear that they were not expressing professional opinions. Dr. Robert Smith, an intern in the gynecology ward at D. C. General Hospital, testified that the appellant "was not specifically my patient. I think perhaps she was the patient of Dr. Trotta who was the other intern. I would see her and maybe talk with her occasionally, but not professionally." The prosecutor asked Dr. Smith: "As a layman and not in your capacity as a physician did you notice anything abnormal by way of activity, or speech, or anything about Catherine Hopkins — in other words, as a layman, can you tell His Honor from what you saw and heard of her was she crazy or sane when you saw her over there?" Dr. Smith replied: "She — well, as far as I am concerned, she was sane." Dr. Rovner, Resident Physician in Obstetrics and Gynecology at D. C. General, talked with her while treating her for an incomplete abortion. The prosecutor said to him: "I want you, if you will, doctor, as a layman, tell His Honor whether or not, based on your observation of this defendant Hopkins, and hearing her talk and seeing her actions, tell His Honor, as a layman, whether or not in your opinion during her time in the hospital she was crazy or of sound mind." He replied: "At the times I had occasion to speak to her or con verse with her, she appeared to be of sound mind. She was lucid and rational and answered questions in a normal manner."
As we said in Carter v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 227, 237, 252 F.2d 608, 618, "while a lay witness's observation of abnormal acts by an accused may be of great value as evidence, a statement that the witness never observed an abnormal act on the part of the accused is of value if, but only if, the witness had prolonged and intimate contact with the accused." This case resembles Satterwhite v. United States, 1959, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 398, 267 F.2d 675. Cf. Douglas v. United States, 1956, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 232, 239 F.2d 52.
That the attempted abortion was performed in an outrageous and brutal manner is not evidence that the appellant was sane.
An "accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect." Durham v. United States, 1954, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 228, 241, 214 F.2d 862, 875, 45 A.L.K.2d 1430. "When this defense is raised, the response of the Government may be one or the other (or both alternatively) of two propositions: (1) that the accused had no mental disease or defect or (2) that even if the accused had a mental disease or defect the alleged criminal offense was not the product of the infirmity. In order to convict, the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt either (1) that the accused had no mental disease or defect or (2) that, although the accused was defective or diseased, his act was not the product of the affliction." Carter v. United States, 1957, 102 U.S. App.D.C. 227, 234, 252 F.2d 608, 615. In the present case the government says it proved proposition (1). We disagree.
"The nature and quantum of evidence of sanity which the Government must produce to sustain its burden and take the issue to the jury will vary in different cases. Evidence of sanity which may suffice in a case where defendant has introduced merely 'some evidence' of insanity may be altogether inadequate in a case where the evidence of insanity is substantial." Wright v. United States, 1957, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 36, 39, 250 F.2d 4, 7. In the present case the evidence of insanity was plainly substantial. It understates the matter to say that in our opinion all the evidence did not permit the trier of the fact to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant had no mental disease or defect. We by no means suggest that lay testimony may not, in some circumstances, be reasonably thought so far to outweigh psychiatric testimony as to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. We deal only with the circumstances before us.
For purposes of comparison, we suggest a hypothesis. Suppose the question were, as it sometimes is in an abortion prosecution, whether the woman was pregnant; three gynecologists, each of whom examined her professionally for the purpose of determining whether she was pregnant, - testified positively that she was not; two psychiatrists, each of whom talked with her but neither of whom examined her, testified, expressly "as laymen", that she looked pregnant to them; and several laymen testified to similar effect. It would hardly be contended that the prosecution could be thought to have proved pregnancy beyond a reasonable doubt.
Without regard to other questions, we reverse the conviction and remand the case with instructions that unless the government advises the District Court, without unreasonable delay, that it can meet its burden of proof at a new trial, the appellant is to be acquitted on the ground of insanity, committed to a mental hospital, and dealt with in accordance with D.C.Code (Supp. VII, 1959) § 24-301; namely, hospitalized until she is free from such abnormal mental condition as would render her dangerous to herself or the community in the reasonably foreseeable future. Overholser v. Leach, 1958, 103 U.S.App. D.C. 289, 257 F.2d 667, cert denied 1959, 359 U.S. 1013, 79 S.Ct. 1152, 3 L.Ed,2d 1038.
Reversed and remanded.
. There is no contention that the government proved proposition (2). The defense sought to prove, and the government to disprove, a causal relation between appellant's mental condition and the attempted abortion, but the testimony on this point was inconclusive. B. g., on cross-examination Dr. Hoye testified as follows:
"Q. Well, you don't know whether the act of abortion performed by this defendant was or was not the product of the mental illness you speak of, do you? A. No, I said it could possibly be.
"Q. But you don't know that, doctor? A. It is only my opinion.
"Q. And your opinion in that regard— it wouldn't surprise you greatly if the act of abortion was not the product of the mental disease, would it? A. In her case I think it would."
. We must reverse a criminal conviction when it is "clear to us that upon the evidence a reasonable mind must necessarily have bad a reasonable doubt as to guilt." Cooper v. United States, 1954, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 345, 218 F.2d 39, 41. Hammond v. United States, 1942, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 397, 127 F.2d 752; Sleight v. United States, 1936, 65 App.D.C. 203, 82 F.2d 459; Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n v. United States, 1951, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 14, 193 F.2d 907; Benton v. United States, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 158, 188 F.2d 625; Kelly v. United States, 90 U.S.App. D.C. 125, 194 F.2d 150; and Wilson v. United States, 1959, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 226, 271 F.2d 492, illustrate this principle. See also Farrar v. United States, 107 U.S .App.D.C.-, 275 F.2d 868. Cf. Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 331, 77 S.Ct. 1064, 1 L.Ed.2d 1356.
There is nothing new about applying this familiar principle to the issue of insanity. In Douglas v. United States, 1956, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 232, 239, 239 F.2d 52, 59, we said: "Wo find it impossible to hold in the face of the generally uniform testimony of the three dis interested psychiatrists, the only ones who testified, that this test essential to the validity of the verdicts was met. On any rational view of this evidence, emanating from Government sources, reasonable doubt existed as to Douglas' s.anity . True, there was non-expert testimony. But this, as will be seen from its outline earlier in this opinion, cut both, ways . Our judicial conclusion that as a factual matter a reasonable doubt was created by the disinterested medical testimony, coupled with the adjudication of unsoundness of mind and the hospitalization for eighteen months, is not changed by the lay witnesses who testified only as to Douglas' conduct during the robberies and shortly thereafter." See also Satterwhite v. United States, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 398, 267 F.2d 675.