Title: STATE EX REL MAIN v DIST COURT
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12753
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 31, 1974

No. 12753 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1974 STATE O F M O N T A N A ex rel. WILLIAM T. MAIN, Relator, T H E DISTRICT C O U R T O F T H E FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A , I N AND F O R THE COUNTY O F BEAVERHEAD, and THE H O N O R A B L E F R A N K E. BLAIR, Presiding Judge, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : Counsel of Record: For Relator : Smith, Smith and Sewell, Helena, Montana Chadwick H, Smith argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents: Hon. Robert L. Woodahl, Attorney General, Helena, Montana W. G. Gilbert 111, County Attorney, argued, Dillon, Montana Submitted: May 23, 1974 Filed : JvL 8 1 1914 Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an original proceeding wherein relator William T . Main petitions for a writ of supervisory control or other appropriate writ seeking in effect dismissal of an Information and a finding of acquittal by the district court of the fifth judicial district, county of Beaverhead. The issues here arose out of the filing of an Information charging the crimes of rape and assault in the first degree. The Information was filed on March 2, 1971. Relator was represented by counsel who represented to the court that relator suffered from a mental defect and required a psychiatric examination, The court granted counsel's request and petitioner was committed to the state hospital for evaluation without an arraignment. Following examination and evaluation, a report was made to the court by Dr. M . F . Gracia, clinical director at the state hospital. The report stated relator was suffering from a mental defect or disease which prevented him from conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the criminal conduct charged and further that relator's capacity to understand the proceedings against him and a s s i s t in his own defense was impaired. This report was filed on April 14, 1971. On July 3, 1971, following the submission of briefs by both parties, the court found relator was suffering from mental disease which prevented him from under- standing the nature of the proceedings against him and from assisting in his own defense. The court committed relator to the state hospital until such time as he was able to understand the nature of the pro- ceedings against him and to assist in his own defense, Relator remained at the state hospital pursuant to the court's order, undergoing treatment under the direction of Dr. Gracia. O n August 4, 1972, relator's guardian moved the court to allow relator to be transferred to American Lake Hospital in Tacoma, Washington, ( a federal hospital) for more extended treatment. This treatment was recommended by a staff psychiatrist at the state hospital. No action was taken by the court for nearly one year, when on July 9, 1973, relator moved the court to dismiss the Information and grant a judgment of acquittal on the grounds that at the time of the crime relator was suffering from a mental disease or defect which rendered him unable to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. A hearing was had on relator's motion on November 13, 1973, Relator offered the testimony of Dr. Gracia and the state offered the testimony of a Dr. Stanley G . Moisey, a practicing psychiatrist from Missoula, Montana. The transcript of this hearing along with all of the files and exhibits of this case are before this Court for consideration. Dr. Gracia testified as to relator's psychiatric history: 1. That he had first examined relator in 1966 on an emergency commitment and relator was under his care for some two and a half months. 2 . That relator had a history of mental illness dating back to 1962 according to medical records of the United States Army. These records indicate he was treated at Letterman General Hospital in San Francisco for psychiatric disorders. 3. That from 1962 to the time of the alleged crimes, relator had a history of commitment and recommitment in mental institutions including the American Lake Hospital in Washington. Based on the treatments given relator at the state hospital under the supervision of Dr. Gracia and the medical records available from other mental treatment institutions, Dr. Gracia diagnosed relator's condition to be acute schizophrenia, schizophrenia paranoid type, anti-social personality and schizophrenic-chronic undifferentiated type. Dr. Gracia's opinion, after examining and treating relator, was that he I ' * * * was not able to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the criminal conduct charged * * *. " D r . Moisey t e s t i f i e d f o r the s t a t e and s t a t e d he had examined r e l a t o r between October 18 and October 29, 1973. In addition he interviewed t h e victim, the county attorney of Beaver- head County and reviewed the case h i s t o r i e s of the s t a t e hospital and the American Lake Hospital, Tacoma, Washington, i n regard t o r e l a t o r . With t h i s background of information, D r . Moisey t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n h i s opinion he did "not see evidence t h a t he was so grossly mentally disturbed t h a t he was unable t o appreciate what he was I' doing a t the t i m e . In h i s opinion r e l a t o r was presently capable of standing t r i a l . In weighing the consideration t o be given D r . ~ o i s e y ' s testimony we note t h a t j u s t three questions before t h e above quoted testimony, D r . Moisey t e s t i f i e d : "Well from m y examination of William Main, it was not possible f o r m e t o determine h i s s t a t e of mind a t the time of the alleged offense i n 1971." D r . ~ o i s e y ' s examination of r e l a t o r occurred two and one half years a f t e r the offense and no testimony was offered by D r . Moisey o r the s t a t e with regard t o r e l a t o r ' s a b i l i t y a t the time of the alleged offense t o conform h i s conduct t o the requirements of the law. O n December 11, 1973, a f t e r the hearing, Judge B l a i r entered an order denying r e l a t o r ' s motions on the b a s i s t h a t D r . Moisey expressed an opinion t h a t : (a) i n s p i t e of h i s history of mental disease, defendant has the capacity t o understand the proceedings against him and t o a s s i s t i n h i s own defense; (b) t h a t defendant was able t o appreciate t h e criminality of h i s conduct and t o conform h i s conduct t o the requirements of the law a t the time of the criminal conduct charged. O n t h a t b a s i s Judge B l a i r s t a t e d t h a t a factual question f o r the jury was raised. On December 24, 1973, the county attorney dismissed the o r i g i n a l Information and r e f i l e d an i d e n t i c a l Information charging r e l a t o r with t h e same offenses. Three issues a r e presented i n t h i s application f o r a w r i t of supervisory control, a l l a r e directed t o t h e t r i a l court's abuse of discretion: 1. The district court committed reversible error in refusing to grant relator's motion to dismiss and for judgment of acquittal on the grounds that the only competent evidence shows that at the time of the alleged offense relator was unable to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his condust to the re- quirements of the law because of a mental disease or defect. 2 . The district court committed reversible error in refus- ing to dismiss the Information on the ground that so much time had elapsed since the arrest that it would be unjust to resume the criminal proceedings under the circumstances of this case. 3 . The issues presented by this application are not render- ed moot by the action of the district court in dismissing the In- formation against relator and allowing immediate refiling of an identical Information. In our discussion of the issues raised we will consider the issues as one. Relator argues that in failing to grant relator's motion to dismiss and for a judgment of acquittal the trial court com- mitted error. The controlling statutes are sections 95-501, 505, 507, R . C . M . 1947. Under the provisions of section 95-501, in order to sustain a criminal charge the state must be able to prove criminal intent: "95-501. Mental disease or defect excluding responsibility. ( a ) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he is unable either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law, I I In this case the defense of mental disease or defect was given and the district court, following the provisions of section 95-505, R . C . M . 1947, sent relator to the state hospital for an evaluation and to determine whether or not relator understood the criminality of his conduct or could conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the criminal conduct charged or had the capacity to assist in his defense. Section 95-505, R.C.M. 1947, provides: "95-505. Psychiatric examination of defend- ant with respect t o mental disease o r defect. (a) Whenever the defendant has f i l e d a notice of in- tention to r e l y on the defense of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, or there i s reason t o doubt his fitness t o proceed, or reason t o be- lieve that mental disease or defect of the defend- ant w i l l otherwise become an issue i n the cause, the court shall appoint a t l e a s t one (1) qualified psychiatrist o r shall request the superintendent of the Montana s t a t e hospital to designate a t l e a s t one (1) qualified psychiatrist, which designation may be or include himself, to examine and report upon the mental condition of the defendant. The court may order the defendant t o be committed t o a hospital or other suitable f a c i l i t y for the purpose of the examination for a period of not exceeding sixty (60) days o r such longer period as the court deter- mines t o be necessary for the purpose and may direct that a qualified psychiatrist retained by the defend- ant be permitted t o witness and participate i n the examination. I I (b) In such examination any method may be employed which i s accepted by the medical profession for the examination of those alleged t o be suffering from mental disease or defect. "(c) The report of the examination s h a l l include the following : "(1) A description of the nature of the examina- tion; "(2) A diagnosis of the mental condition of the defendant; "(3) I f the defendant suffers from a mental dis- ease or defect, an opinion a s t o h i s capacity t o understand the proceedings against him and t o a s s i s t in h i s own defense. "(4) When a notice of intention t o rely on the defense of irresponsibility has been filed, an opinion as t o the a b i l i t y of the defendant t o ap- preciate the criminality of h i s conduct or t o con- form h i s conduct t o the requirements of law a t the time of the criminal conduct charged; and "(5) When directed by the court, an opinion a s t o the capacity of the defendant t o have a particu- l a r s t a t e of mind which i s an element of the offense charged. !I I f the examination cannot be conducted by reason of the unwillingness of the defendant t o parti- cipate therein, the report shall so s t a t e and shall include, i f possible, an opinion a s t o whether such unwillingness of the defendant was the result of mental disease or defect. ' he report of the examination shall be filed (in triplicate) with the clerk of court, who shall cause copies to be delivered to the county attorney and to counsel for the defendant. It Having followed the above procedural statutes, and having received the statements of evaluation and prognosis of the two psychiatrists the court was then confronted with the alternative actions that can be applied under the provisions of section 95- 507 ( a ) , R . C . M . 1947: "95-507. Determination of irresponsibility on basis of report--access to defendant by psychiatrist of his own choice--form of expert testimony when issue of responsibility is tried. ( a ) If the report filed pursuant to section 95-505 finds that the defendant at the time of the criminal conduct charged suffered from a mental disease or defect which rendered him unable to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law, and the court, after a hearing if a hearing is requested by the attorney prosecuting or the defendant, is satis- fied that such mental disease or defect was sufficient to exclude responsibility, the court on motion of the defendant shall enter judgment of acquittal on the ground of mental disease or defect excluding respon- sibility. " The problem here is whether under the discretionary pro- visions of section 95-507, there was an abuse of discretion in giving such weight to the testimony of Dr. Moisey as to now require the question of mental competency to go t o a jury. Respondent court argues that this is a matter entirely up to the discretion of the trial court; that there have been three hearings before the court during which time the court could observe relator and that in employing Dr. Moisey the court could and did get medical testimony that, in the court's opinion, was such that he (the trial judge) felt the matter should be submitted to a jury. Relator argues that Dr. Moisey's testimony failed to raise a factual question, noting that Dr. Moisey did not, and he testi- fied he could not, testify as to relator's mental condition at the time of the criminal act charged, as required by section 95-507, R . C . M . 1947. We agree. The statute was particularly designed t o procedurally process just such a case a s w e have before us here. Relator has been i n custody over three and one-half years a t the s t a t e hospital and the overwhelming weight of a l l of the testimony, much of which i s based on the medical records before the court, i s that relator suffers from such mental disease or defect a s t o exclude responsibility for h i s acts. There i s no medical testimony contrary t o D r . ~ r a c i a ' s testimony that relator "was not able t o conform h i s conduct t o the requirement of the law a t the time of the criminal conduct charged." D r . Gracia based t h i s opinion on (1) an examination of relator several weeks a f t e r the alleged crime; (2) upon ex- tensive psychological testing and medical examination including observation by staff personnel every day for several years; (3) upon the study of r e l a t o r ' s social history and history of men- t a l i l l n e s s dating back t o 1962; and ( 4 ) the doctor's personal contact with relator beginning i n 1966. In State ex r e l . Krutzfeldt v. District Court, - Mont . - 9 515 P.2d 1312, 1315, 30 St.Rep. 993, t h i s Court discussed the procedures provided for i n section 95-507(a), R.C.M. 1947: " * * * That comment makes it clear that i f , i n the judge's opinion and a f t e r a hearing i f re- quested by either attorney, a defendant was clear1 7i- suffering from mental disease a t the time of t e crime then the judge can acquit the defendant and have him committed t o a s t a t e institution forthwith. The purpose i s plain--to avoid a costly t r i a l where the mental defect i s plain and obvious. * * *" The entry of judgment of acquittal by the t r i a l court does not mean the relator goes free. The provisions of section 95-508(a), R.C.M. 1947, procedurally provide for these cases. In State v. Taylor, 158 Mont. 323, 335, 491 P.2d 877, t h i s Court i n interpreting section 95-508(a) said that a person so committed would not be released from the s t a t e hospital unless the release was recommended by the superintendent and the person committed could establish a t a hearing held before the d i s t r i c t judge who signed the commitment, beyond a reasonable doubt that he would not be dangerous in the forseeable future. We noted in Taylor, that the judicial supervision under these circumstances $1 is to protect the public as well as the individual by insur- ing that standards for release are not subverted by allowing the final determination to be according to the individual sub- jective standards of the hospital staff." Under Montana stat- utes only the trial court, the committing court, has the power to discharge or conditionally release. Therefore, we direct the trial court to reverse its order entered on December 11, 1973 and enter a judgment of acquittal on the ground of mental disease or defect excluding responsibil- ity. Thereafter, we direct that commitment proceedings be held in accord with the provisions of section 95-507, R . C . M . 1947. i Justice 4 We concur: I