Case Name: Roy Martin PUGH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee
Court: Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1989-10-24
Citations: 781 P.2d 843
Docket Number: No. F-86-279
Parties: Roy Martin PUGH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
Judges: LUMPKIN, J., concurs.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 781
Pages: 843–846

Head Matter:
Roy Martin PUGH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.
No. F-86-279.
Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.
Oct. 24, 1989.
David Autry, Asst. Appellate Public Defender, Norman, for appellant.
Robert H. Henry, Atty. Gen., Wellon B. Poe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

Opinion:
OPINION
PARKS, Presiding Judge:
Appellant, Roy Martin Pugh, was tried by jury and convicted of First Degree Murder (21 O.S.Supp.1988, 701.7(C)) in Osage County District Court, Case No. CRF-85-30, before the Honorable Mermon H. Potter. The jury set punishment at life imprisonment. Judgment and sentence was imposed accordingly. We reverse and remand for a new trial.
Because appellant's fourth proposition of error is dispositive of this case, we will not address the remaining propositions. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: Kimberly Ransome, a two-year old child, was beaten severely by seventeen (17) year old appellant, who was babysitting the child while her mother was working. Upon returning home, Angela Rucker, Kimberly's mother, noticed bruises on Kimberly's face and realized that Kimberly was unconscious. She, along with appellant, rushed the child to the hospital. Three days later, Kimberly died as a result of her injuries. Appellant's sole defense was that of insanity. He presented expert and lay testimony, which revealed his severely troubled past. Dr. Hamilton, an expert in child psychiatry, testified that appellant had quite possibly dissociated himself from his actions, thereby not seeing his conduct as a product of his own thinking.
Appellant urges that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury as to the complete definition of insanity. At trial, defense counsel presented a requested instruction which was identical to Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instruction — Criminal, Instruction Number 729:
A person is insane when that person is suffering from such a disability of reason or disease of the mind that he/she does not know that his/her acts or omissions are wrong and is unable to distinguish right from wrong with respect to his/her acts or omissions. A person is also insane when that person is suffering from such a disability of reason or disease of the mind that he/she does not understand the nature and consequences of his/her acts or omissions.
(Emphasis Added) Both parties agreed that an instruction on insanity was required under Broaddrick v. Oklahoma, 706 P.2d 534, 536 (Okla.Crim.App.1985); however, the prosecution argued that the second sentence of the requested instruction was redundant and confusing. The trial court agreed, and refused to give the full and complete instruction to the jury. Instead, the trial court, omitting the second sentence, instructed the jury only that appellant could be found insane if he was suffering from such a disability or disease of the mind that he was unable to distinguish right from wrong.
Appellant claims that this omission was critical insofar as it narrowed the definition of insanity. The State agrees that the trial court could have properly given the instruction requested by appellant, but urges that it was not necessary to do so. As a basis for this claim, the State cites Munn v. State, 658 P.2d 482, 484 (Okla.Crim.App.1983) for the proposition that the instruction is "more broad and encompassing than required by Oklahoma case law." Brief of Appellee, at 20. In Munn, this Court, addressing the issue of whether the State adequately rebutted the defense of insanity, stated that after the defendant raises a reasonable doubt as to his sanity, it becomes the State's burden to prove "that the defendant could distinguish between right and wrong...." From this language, the State surmises that the second test of M'Naghten regarding "nature and consequences" has been abandoned by this Court insofar as it was not mentioned in Munn.
Thus, the first issue before this Court is whether the second prong' of M'Naghten has been abandoned by this Court. Concedely, it has long been held that M'Naghten is the only test used to determine criminal responsibility in Oklahoma. Walker v. State, 723 P.2d 273, 282 (Okla.Crim.App.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 995, 107 S.Ct. 599, 93 L.Ed.2d 600; Jones v. State, 648 P.2d 1251, 1254 (Okla.Crim.App.1982). Furthermore, in Jones, 648 P.2d at 1254, this Court specifically held a defendant was legally insane if "during the commission of the crime he was suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him unable to differentiate between right and wrong, or unable to understand the nature and consequences of his acts." See also Richardson v. State, 569 P.2d 1018, 1019 (Okla.Crim.App.1977); Hair v. State, 532 P.2d 72, 76 (Okla.Crim.App.1975). This language followed explicitly the rule set forth in M'Naghten's Case, 8 Eng.Rep. 718 (1843), and clearly shows that both prongs of the M'Naghten test are applied in Oklahoma. Therefore, after full consideration, we continue to adhere to both prongs of the M'Naghten test.
Having determined that both prongs are applicable, it is clear that the trial court erred by refusing to give the complete instruction requested by appellant. Our next determination is whether the trial court's error necessitates reversal. We hold that it does.
At trial, the prosecutor argued that the second sentence of Instruction Number 729 was redundant and confusing. He claimed that the language referring to the "nature and consequences" of a defendant's actions merely explained in more detail the meaning of "right from wrong" as used in the preceding sentence. Although this Court has never had the opportunity to consider this question, several other courts have confronted the issue. In Price v. Commonwealth, 228 Va. 452, 323 S.E.2d 106, 110 (1984), the Supreme Court of Virginia held that the two parts of M'Naghten are disjunctive and separate ways of determining that a defendant is legally insane:
The first portion of M'Naghten relates to an accused who is psychotic to an extreme degree. It assumes an accused who, because of mental disease, did not know the nature and quality of his act; he simply did not know what he was doing. For example, in crushing the skull of a human being with an iron bar, he believed that he was smashing a glass jar. The latter portion of M'Naghten relates to an accused who knew the nature and quality of his act. He knew what he was doing; he knew that he was crushing the skull of a human being with an iron bar. However, because of mental disease, he did not know know that what he was doing was wrong. He believed, for example, that he was carrying out a command from God. 2 C. Torcia, Wharton's Criminal Law § 100, at 9 (14th ed. 1979) (footnotes omitted).
As explained by the Iowa Supreme Court in State v. Thomas, 219 N.W.2d 3, 6 (Iowa 1974), a defendant is entitled to an acquittal "if he knew what he was doing [but] he did not know it was wrong, or vice versa." Thus, these two prongs of M'Naghten essentially set forth two separate and distinct ways that a defendant may be determined legally insane. See also State v. Mancuso, 364 S.E.2d 359, 363 (N.C.1988); State v. Box, 109 Wash.2d 320, 745 P.2d 23, 25 (1987); State v. Lawton, 241 Kan. 140, 734 P.2d 1138, 1141 (1987); State v. Humanik, 199 N.J.Super. 283, 489 A.2d 691, 699 (Ct.App.Div.1985); People v. Guillen, 217 Cal.Rptr. 685, 704 P.2d 752 (1985); State v. Chavez, 143 Ariz. 238, 693 P.2d 893, 894 (1985); Edwards v. State, 441 So.2d 84, 86 (Miss.1983); State v. Barfield, 298 N.C. 306, 259 S.E.2d 510, 528-29 (1979), cert. denied, 448 U.S. 907, 100 S.Ct. 3050, 65 L.Ed.2d 1137 (1980).
By refusing appellant's requested instruction, the trial court eliminated from the jury's consideration one distinct and separate avenue under which appellant could have been determined to be legally insane. As in Price, 323 S.E.2d at 110, we find this to be reversible error. Although the State asserts such error is harmless, we believe appellant was deprived of a fair and impartial trial because the jury was not given complete instructions in conformance with the M'Naghten rule. See Johnson v. State, 693 P.2d 1, 2 (Okla.Crim.App.1984); Perkins v. State, 492 P.2d 383, 384 (Okla.Crim.App.1971).
For the reasons discussed above, this cause is REVERSED and REMANDED for a NEW TRIAL.
LUMPKIN, J., concurs.
LANE, V.P.J., concurs in result.
BRETT, J., dissents.
. Title 21 O.S.1981, § 152(4) is the legislative authority relied on by this Court in holding that M'Naghten is the only test used to determine criminal responsibility in Oklahoma. See Comments, Oklahoma Uniform Jury Instructions— Criminal, Instruction Number 729. Section 152 specifically mentions the "right and wrong" prong of M'Naghten. Although no mention of the "nature and consequences" prong is mentioned in Section 152, this Court has interpreted Section 152 to include both prongs of M'Naghten. Jones, 648 P.2d at 1254. Unlike State v. Patterson, 740 P.2d 944 (Alaska 1987), wherein the Alaska legislature specifically enacted legislation omitting one prong of the M'Naghten test, thereby disapproving the judicial interpretation of the statutory insanity defense, the Oklahoma legislature has never indicated that our judicial interpretation is inconsistent with the intent of Section 152.