Title: State v. Brown
Citation: 102 Ariz. 87, 425 P.2d 112
Docket Number: 1729
State: Arizona
Issuer: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: March 15, 1967

102 Ariz. 87 (1967) 425 P.2d 112 STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. James BROWN, Appellant. No. 1729. Supreme Court of Arizona. In Banc. March 15, 1967. *88 Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., and David S. Ellsworth, County Atty., Yuma County, for appellee. Darryl A. Adams, Phoenix, for appellant. UDALL, Justice: Appellant, James Brown, hereinafter referred to as defendant, was tried and convicted in the Superior Court of Yuma County for the crime of robbery. From the verdict, judgment and sentence defendant has brought this appeal. The facts connected with the alleged commission of the crime, that are material to the case, are as follows: An accomplice to the crime, one Dennis West, was a witness against the defendant. Prior to the date of the trial, this witness had been committed to the Arizona State Hospital for a mental examination. The examination of the witness had not been completed at the time that he testified. It appears that witness West, by order of the Superior Court, was committed to the State Hospital in Phoenix on June 10, 1966. He was returned to Yuma County and testified at the trial on June 17th as a witness for the prosecution. After the trial he was returned to the State Hospital where he remained until July 27, 1966. There was testimony that the witness had been treated by other psychiatrists prior to the time he was brought to trial as an accomplice of defendant in this case. Witness West pled guilty to the crime of robbery and, at the beginning of the trial of defendant in this cause, he was examined by the court on voir dire in the absence of the jury, to determine if he was qualified to testify in accordance with the provisions of A.R.S. § 12-2202, subsec. 1. At the conclusion of the hearing the court stated: Thereupon the jury was called and the court proceeded with the trial. There is one basic question presented to us for review: Was the witness West properly found to be mentally competent to give testimony in this cause, in view of the fact that at that time he had been committed to the mental hospital for observation and examination? Defendant contends the lower court erred in allowing West to testify at the trial since the order committing him to a mental institution was sufficient proof to overcome the presumption of his sanity; therefore, the court should have required the prosecution to present evidence of his mental competency to testify before allowing him to do so. A.R.S. Section 13-1801 reads: A.R.S. Section 12-2202, subsec. 1 states: This is a matter of first impression in this state, although this Court has twice interpreted A.R.S. § 12-2202, subsec. 1 in reference to minor children testifying. Davis v. Weber, 93 Ariz. 312, 380 P.2d 608; and Litzkuhn v. Clark, 85 Ariz. 355, 339 P.2d 389. In Weber we said: California Penal Code § 1321 and California Code of Civil Procedure § 1880(1) are identical to A.R.S. §§ 13-1801 and 12-2202, subsec. 1 respectively. The decisions interpreting these statutes in California are therefore very persuasive. Generally speaking, when an objection is made to the soundness of a witness's mind, the question of the competency of said witness is one to be determined by the trial judge. In the case of People v. McCaughan, 49 Cal. 2d 409, 317 P.2d 974, 981, the Supreme Court of California said: The California court, in People v. Ives, 17 Cal. 2d 459, 110 P.2d 408, 417, noted: In People v. Horowitz, 70 Cal. App. 2d 675, 161 P.2d 833, 845, the Supreme Court of California stated: Reviewing the facts in this case it is apparent that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing witness West to testify. He had never been adjudged insane, but had only been committd to the *90 state hospital for examination and treatment. While it is true that previously he had nervous disorders and earlier had sought psychiatric aid in adjusting his life to society, there is absolutely no evidence that he was not capable of understanding the nature of an oath or of perceiving the incidents in question and properly relating them to the court. Judgment affirmed. BERNSTEIN, C.J., McFARLAND, V.C.J., and STRUCKMEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., concur.