Case Name: Claude C. GOFORTH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1959-07-02
Citations: 269 F.2d 778
Docket Number: No. 15029
Parties: Claude C. GOFORTH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 269
Pages: 778–781

Head Matter:
Claude C. GOFORTH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 15029.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued June 11, 1959.
Decided July 2, 1959.
Bastían, Circuit Judge, dissented.
Mr. Richard Arens, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), for appellant.
Mr. Fidgar T. Bellinger, 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 ap-pellee.
Before Fahy, Danaher and Bastían, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
FAHY, Circuit Judge.
On the trial of appellant for taking immoral liberties with a female child under sixteen years of age in violation of D.C.Code, § 22-3501 (a) (1951), of which he was convicted, significant evidence that he might have been of unsound mind at the time of the alleged crime was introduced, including evidence of delusions and the hearing of voices. Under settled law this placed upon the prosecution the burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L.Ed. 499; Tatum v. United States, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 386, 190 F.2d 612; Durham v. United States, 94 U.S. App.D.C. 228, 214 F.2d 862; Douglas v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 232, 239 F.2d 52; Satterwhite v. United States, 105 U.S.App.D.C. 398, 267 F.2d 675. As a necessary corollary the court should have instructed the jury on the issue of sanity. This was not done, and for this reason we reverse and remand for a new trial.
Due to the fact that specific intent was also an element of the crime to be proved, coupled with evidence that appellant suffered from alcoholism, the court did charge the jury on the issue of mental capacity to form a specific intent; but this was not a charge on the question of sanity, and the United States does not contend that it was.
Trial counsel failed to submit to the court a written form of instruction on sanity, and failed also, after completion of the court's charge, to object to the omission; but he had several times requested the court to give the instruction. We think in the circumstances that the failure of the court to do so constituted plain error affecting substantial rights. For this reason we notice the error under the authority expressly granted to us to do so by Rule 52(b), Fed.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C.A.
Reversed and remanded.