Opinion ID: 2616898
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sanity Question

Text: As recently as our decision in Reilly v. State, Wyo., 496 P.2d 899, 902, we recognized that the burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt rests upon the state. In this instance, however, there was ample evidence for the jury to believe Rice was sane at the time of his offenses. It is true Dr. Joseph Rich, a court-appointed psychiatrist, testified Rice was insane when he committed the acts complained of. However, the state points out that Dr. Rich was inexperienced, having been in practice for only two and one-half months. Also, this was his first criminal case, and he was not certified by the Board of the American Psychiatric Association. In contradiction of Dr. Rich's opinion that Rice was insane at the time in question, he testified to the belief that Rice knew who he was and where he was. Also, the doctor testified several times that Rice was completely rational and sane when he examined him. If that was so, the jury might infer Dr. Rich was only speculating and guessing as to his sanity at the time he committed the offenses involved. A jury can always disregard the testimony of an expert if the jurors find it to be unreasonable. People v. Ketchel, 59 Cal.2d 503, 30 Cal. Rptr. 538, 381 P.2d 394, 406; People v. Tucker, 88 Cal. App.2d 333, 198 P.2d 941, 944-945. Moreover, the testimony of Dr. Rich was merely part of the evidence and it had to be considered with other evidence bearing on the question of the defendant's sanity. See State v. Cano, 103 Ariz. 37, 436 P.2d 586, 590; State v. London, 131 Mont. 410, 310 P.2d 571, 585-586; and State v. Velsir, 61 Wyo. 476, 159 P.2d 371, 377. Dr. William Pace, Associate Superintendent of the Wyoming State Hospital, testified concerning a report made when Rice was examined at the state hospital. According to the report, it was the opinion of Dr. Pace and of the professional staff that Rice was able to understand the nature and quality of his actions and to differentiate right from wrong at the time of the commission of the alleged offenses. Dr. Pace testified specifically that he believed the defendant was sane when he was not completely under the influence of alcohol. To what extent Rice may or may not have been under the influence of alcohol at the time in question was not something Dr. Pace could testify to and he did not attempt to do so. We indicated in Lonquest v. State, Wyo., 495 P.2d 575, 582, that the understanding of one who has been drinking must be determined on the facts of each particular case. In Rice's case, it was for the jury to decide whether his drinking had rendered him insane. There was a host of lay witnesses who testified concerning Rice's sanity and as to his drinking and understanding of what he was doing. This included personal friends of the defendant, defense witnesses, the defendant's wife, and even the defendant himself. Without reviewing all of this evidence, we can say it was unquestionably sufficient for the jury to believe Rice was sane and knew what he was doing and that he knew he was doing wrong at the times we are concerned with. Rice testified he remembered taking several drinks and he remembered leaving the car and hitchhiking home. He also remembered asking a friend the next morning if anyone had been hurt from the shooting which took place. His wife testified her husband drank voluntarily off and on and never had any problems before. Counsel for appellant cites Gustavenson v. State, 10 Wyo. 300, 68 P. 1006, 1010, recognizing that it stands for the rule that alcohol, when consumed voluntarily, is an exception to the rule that insanity is a sufficient defense. Counsel then urges upon us that Rice did not ingest alcohol voluntarily because he was a chronic alcoholic and had lost his control over the use of alcoholic beverages. What counsel fails to consider in this argument is that we are not retrying the case as a fact finder. We cannot say as a matter of law in this case that Rice was a chronic alcoholic who had lost his control over the use of alcoholic beverages. It is quite apparent the jury found against such a claim and argument. Section 6-16, W.S. 1957, provides: Drunkenness shall not be an excuse for any crime   . Where a crime rests in intention, the inebriated condition of the defendant at the time of committing the offense may be proven to the jury, as bearing upon the question of intention. If the defendant is to stand on a claim that he, because of drunkenness, could not have intended the consequences of his acts, that fact would first have to be proven to the jury as provided for in § 6-16. To claim insanity on account of drunkenness is equivalent to claiming the absence of intent on account of drunkenness. The question is clearly a jury question; and the jury was fully instructed on this subject.