Title: Spurlock v. State
Citation: 368 S.W.2d 299
Docket Number: N/A
State: Tennessee
Issuer: Tennessee Supreme Court
Date: June 4, 1963

368 S.W.2d 299 (1963) Kenneth SPURLOCK, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Tennessee. Supreme Court of Tennessee. June 4, 1963. *300 George E. Barrett, Asst. Public Defender, Nashville, for plaintiff in error. George F. McCanless, Atty. Gen., Lyle Reid, Asst. Atty. Gen., Nashville, for the State. BURNETT, Chief Justice. Kenneth Spurlock, plaintiff in error, was indicted for burglary and larceny, and under this indictment was convicted of petit larceny and sentenced to pay a fine of $10.00 and serve (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days in the county jail. From this conviction he has seasonably perfected an appeal, assignments of error and briefs have been filed and arguments heard, and now after studying the record and authorities we have the matter for disposition. The case was tried upon a stipulation of facts which in brief cited that during the night of October 17, 1962, the plaintiff in error broke into a business house in Davidson County and stole approximately $25.00; that the plaintiff in error stole an automobile in which he was apprehended; and that he admitted both acts to the police officers. The only insistence of the plaintiff in error is that he was insane at the time he committed the acts. "Insanity as a defense in criminal prosecutions is a question of fact for the jury to determine under proper instructions by the court as other facts are found." 14 Am.Jur., § 42, page 799. The law presumes sanity, and, this being true, obviously the burden is upon the plaintiff in error to show insanity, voluntary or involuntary. Mullendore v. State, 183 Tenn. 53, 191 S.W.2d 149. The question as to the sanity of the plaintiff in error was the only testimony offered in this case. This testimony consisted of that of Dr. Albert R. Lawson, a psychiatrist on the faculty of Vanderbilt University and Meharry Medical College. The State introduced the testimony of Dr. J.N. Fidelholtz, a psychiatrist in charge of the Maximum Security Unit at Central State Hospital, and Dr. Frank H. Luton, a psychiatrist and Clinical Director at Central State Hospital and Professor of Psychiatry at Vanderbilt Medical College. The record shows that prior to the trial the plaintiff in error was committed to the Central State Hospital for observation. The hospital reported that the plaintiff in error was not insane and that he had a good concept of right from wrong and knew the acts of which he was accused were morally and legally wrong; and also that he was of normal intelligence and had sufficient judgment to advise counsel of his defense. Of the three psychiatrists who testified in this case Dr. Fidelholtz and Dr. Luton were of the opinion that the plaintiff in error knew right from wrong. Dr. Lawson went into some detail as to the ability to know *301 right from wrong, and stated it was a judgment that one did not like to make and could not make except by relating the questions to the individual's background, experience and life, and from this it was his opinion that the plaintiff in error did not know right from wrong. It was the testimony of Dr. Luton that plaintiff in error was not insane according to the M'Naghten Rule and it was questionable whether or not the man was insane under the Durham Rule. The assignments go to the refusal of the court to give a special request which is bottomed on the Durham Rule, and certain questions asked the psychiatrists. We, in this State, for nearly a hundred years have followed the view quoted below: The charge of the court in the instant case was in compliance with this above legal statement as quoted from American Jurisprudence. This Court has followed this view in numerous cases for nearly a hundred years, beginning with Dove v. State, 50 Tenn. 348, and many of the cases we have followed have applied the rule over the years and are collected in Temples v. State, 183 Tenn. 531, 537, 538, 194 S.W.2d 332. If we should substitute the theory of the special request herein for the law as it now stands in this State, we would be substituting trial by jury for trial by psychiatrists. The questions here involved have been excellently annotated in 70 A.L.R., beginning at page 659, and in 173 A.L.R., beginning at page 391. The M'Naghten Rule that is applied in this State, and most other states, is historically and chronologically discussed in the 70 A.L.R. annotation above referred to. Among other things the annotator says of this rule: We agree with this statement. The Durham Rule, as contended for by the plaintiff in error, gets its name from the case wherein it originated of Durham v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 228, 214 F.2d 862, 45 A.L.R.2d 1430. In this Durham case it was held that the so-called right or wrong test, supplemented by the irresistible impulse test, does not alone supply adequate criteria for determining criminal responsibility of a person of alleged mental incapacity. Counsel for plaintiff in error ably argued at the bar of this Court and in his brief that the giving of the right or wrong test, as given by courts of this State, violates the due process clause and thus giving such an instruction as to the law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the United States in Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 72 S. Ct. 1002, 96 L. Ed. 1302, held that due process does not require a State to eliminate "right and wrong" test of insanity and to adopt the line of "irresistible *302 impulse" test. We agree with this conclusion and adopt it here. The Assistant Attorney General in his brief in this case has made such an excellent statement as to why we should adhere to the right and wrong test which has been adhered to by us over the years and we adopt and quote his statement as part of our opinion. He said: For reasons herein stated the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.