Opinion ID: 1787233
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: trial proceeding-guilt phase

Text: During the course of the voir dire Gall made it known to the trial court that he wished to participate in the conduct of his defense, but without giving up the assistance of his appointed counsel. The court acceded, and Gall thereafter questioned various witnesses, made motions, interjected objections, and entered into discussions between court and counsel at the bench. At the time Gall initiated this development Dr. Noelker, who evidently maintained a fairly continuous observation of his conduct throughout the course of the trial, advised the trial court that Gall was getting pretty close to being incompetent, in that his desire to act the part of an attorney might very well be the result of underlying delusional patterns typical of paranoia. He believed, however, that Gall had not yet reached the point of incompetency to participate rationally in his defense, and there was no further question on that issue until the second day of the trial, at which time defense counsel moved for a continuance on the ground that Gall had become incompetent to stand trial. Dr. Noelker, called in support, testified in chambers that Gall had now transcended the bounds of reality, that although he continued to be competent in all other respects, in my opinion he has disassociated himself from this trial and he is participating in it much more as the attorney than the defendant. A major factor conducing to Dr. Noelker's conclusion in this respect was that Gall did not have much faith in the defense of insanity, preferring rather to cast his main defense along the lines of reasonable doubt. [2] He had some theories, apparently, that to Dr. Noelker and his counsel were bizarre. At this time both court and counsel interrogated Gall very closely in chambers, and the court arranged to have him examined that evening by a psychiatrist, Dr. Kenneth Lanter, following which Dr. Lanter appeared in chambers and testified that in his opinion Gall was mentally competent to participate in his defense and quite capable of making intelligent decisions in so doing. [3] Being convinced, both on the basis of his own observation and the opinion of Dr. Lanter, that Gall was not incompetent to participate in his defense, the trial judge denied counsel's motion for a continuance. Thus far we do not perceive any failure by the trial court to protect the defendant from a possible inability, by reason of mental incompetence, to stand trial. RCr 8.06 provides that if at any time in the course of criminal proceedings there appear reasonable grounds to believe the defendant is insane, the proceedings shall be postponed and the issue of insanity determined as provided by law. In their brief on this appeal, counsel for Gall contend that an incident which occurred during Gall's cross-examination of Detective Charles Seay constituted reasonable grounds to believe that Gall had indeed lost his senses and that the trial court of its own volition should have stopped the trial and conducted another sanity hearing. Seay was the police officer who found the little girl's body on the morning of April 6, 1978. It so happened that he lived in the neighborhood and was familiar with the scene of the crime. When he testified, the details of the Gardnersville episode and the recovery of Gall's .357-caliber revolver had been described by other witnesses. It had also been revealed by the prosecuting attorney in his opening statement to the jury that Lisa Jansen had been shot twice, once through the head and once in the back, and that expert examiners had determined from the steel jacket of the bullet fired into her back that the shot had been fired from the weapon found in the automobile Gall was driving at the time of his arrest. On cross-examination Gall elicited from Officer Seay that he also carried a .357-caliber magnum revolver which was capable of firing the same type of ammunition as had been found in Gall's automobile. Then, Seay having also admitted that when he discovered Lisa's body his suspicions had already centered on Gall, Gall ended the cross-examination in this melodramatic fashion: Okay, now you have testified today that the difference between a .38-caliber bullet and a .357 bullet, as far as the .357 would be, would have more penetrating power. Detective Seay, it took you ten minutes from 8:32 to 8:42 to locate the body of Lisa Jansen down a deserted road, heavily used by-as a lover's lane. I charge you with shooting that second shot through Smith & Wesson Revolver.357 using a .38-caliber bullet to put that second one in to use as evidence. No further questions, Your Honor. Considering what the public has become accustomed to seeing on television nowadays, we do not think this ploy by Gall, in an attempt to lay a seed of doubt in the mind of some one or more of the jurors, was so outlandish [4] as to raise a question of his mental competence. Even if Gall's attorneys had so moved, which they did not, this episode did not require the trial court to conduct another hearing on the issue of his sanity. We turn now to the remaining questions relating to the admissibility of evidence, having previously disposed of the matter of the blood-sample. Gall contends very strongly that the evidence of the Gardnersville incident should not have been admitted because it involved another crime and was not necessary in proving the rape and murder of Lisa Jansen. The Commonwealth sought to uphold the admissibility of this evidence on the ground that it supported an inference that Gall needed money to fund an escape. It is unnecessary to resort to such a chimerical theory. It is a settled principle that competent, relevant testimony will not be excluded on the mere ground that it reveals, to the defendant's obvious prejudice, an unrelated crime or crimes. The subject was thoroughly discussed in Jones v. Commonwealth, Ky., 554 S.W.2d 363, 366-368 (1977), which is dispositive of the issue in this case. The Gardnersville escapade provided several important items of evidence connecting Gall with the Jansen murder. It put him in the same neighborhood in the same morning. It turned up, in Gall's possession, the murder weapon. The bullet removed from the wounded police officer and the steel jacket removed from Lisa's body were fired from the same gun, which would have served to identify the man who shot Trooper Carey as being also the murderer of Lisa even if the weapon itself had not been recovered. Moreover, Gall's apparent sangfroid during the robbery was relevant to the issue of possible emotional disturbance on his part. The argument that this series of events should not have been admitted in evidence is absurd. So is the point that its salient essentials were not in actual dispute. Whether Gall was the murderer certainly was in actual dispute, and the Commonwealth was entitled to introduce whatever evidence was available to sustain its burden of proving the identity of the guilty party. There was no error in the admission of the entire Gardnersville episode. The only other contentions worthy of mention with respect to the propriety of evidence admitted by the trial court relate to photographs and to the testimony of Joan Woods. Neither, in our opinion, raises a serious question. The objectionable photographs consisted of color slides introduced in connection with the testimony of the clinical pathologist who had conducted the post-mortem examination of Lisa's body. We have examined them and do not find them so gruesome or prejudicial as to outweigh their probative value as a part of the doctor's description of what he had found. In recent years this court has followed a rather liberal policy with respect to the admissibility of photographs that are otherwise relevant. See Moore v. Commonwealth, Ky., 489 S.W.2d 516, 518 (1973); Napier v. Commonwealth, Ky., 426 S.W.2d 121 (1968); Salisbury v. Commonwealth, Ky., 417 S.W.2d 244 (1967). It is no answer to say that defense counsel offered to stipulate the essential facts proved by the pathologist and illustrated by the photographs, hence they were unnecessary. The Commonwealth has a right to prove its case to the jury even when the defendant pleads guilty. The defendant is not entitled to erase the ugly parts of the picture and substitute words in their place. In order for a jury to be able to size up a case fairly and wisely it must be allowed to gain a reasonable perspective, and that can best be done by permitting it to see an unadulterated picture. We are of the opinion that the photographs here in question were admissible. Joan Woods, age 12, was the friend who was waiting to go to school with Lisa Jansen when Lisa disappeared, and was called as one of the first witnesses establishing the chronology of events. Apparently she was emotionally upset and had been crying when she took the witness stand. Defense counsel objected to her appearance as a witness on the ground that she was simply being used to upset the jury, and he offered to stipulate that she didn't see Lisa that morning. When she described her relationship to Lisa as her best friend she began to cry again, whereupon the prosecuting attorney held her hand in order to help restore her self-control. She was able to complete her brief appearance as a witness without further incident. We agree that Joan's testimony was not vital. It was relevant, because it proved the time of Lisa's disappearance, but it was merely cumulative of testimony already given by Lisa's mother. The prosecuting attorney might better have chosen discretion above valor, but we do not view it as an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court to let the little girl testify. Nor do we apprehend that the grown men and women who comprised the jury could have been so light-headed as to be seriously affected in their ultimate deliberations by this little vignette of girlish hysteria. Gall makes several contentions with regard to the court's instructions to the jury. First he says that the court should have given a peremptory instruction of acquittal on the ground that as a matter of law the evidence established his insanity at the time of the offense. On that particular issue, however, Gall had the burden of proof, and we certainly cannot hold that the postfactum opinions of his experts were so compelling that reasonable minds could not fail to be convinced by them. Moreover, considering the nature of chronic paranoid schizophrenia, the mental illness from which he was alleged to be suffering, and the testimony to the effect that it not only was of long standing but probably not curable, the observations made by Dr. Chutkow on the basis of his examination of Gall on April 30, 1978, cast considerable doubt that he was afflicted with that disease of April 5, 1978. We recognize, of course, that one may be insane and yet competent to stand trial, and that the direct purpose of this examination was to determine his competence to stand trial, but the fair import of Dr. Chutkow's testimony was that he found no evidence of paranoid schizophrenia existing at that time. Even if Dr. Noelker's testimony were accepted at face value, he conceded that there were periods of remission in which Gall could function in a legally sane manner. Gall himself did not take the stand, and there was no eyewitness testimony showing the circumstances immediately attending the rape and murder. Gall presents two arguments on the subject of extreme emotional disturbance. The first is that the Commonwealth did not produce any evidence that he did not act under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance, hence the evidence was not sufficient to support the trial court's instruction on murder. The second is that the extreme emotional disturbance phase of the murder instruction was fatally deficient in omitting the words, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the standpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. Cf. KRS 507.020(1)(a). Under the law of this state prior to adoption of the Kentucky Penal Code, effective January 1, 1975, a homicide that would otherwise have constituted wilful murder was classified as the lesser degree of voluntary manslaughter if it occurred in a sudden affray or in sudden heat of passion and upon such provocation as would have naturally overcome and suspended the self-control of a man of fair, ordinary and average disposition or will power or cause such a one to act rashly or without due deliberation or reflection. Tarrence v. Commonwealth, Ky., 265 S.W.2d 40, 51 (1954). Voluntary manslaughter has been replaced in the Penal Code by manslaughter in the first degree, which is defined in KRS 507.030. In lieu of sudden affray or sudden heat of passion upon reasonable provocation, the mitigating circumstance now reducing the crime from murder to manslaughter is that the defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the view-point of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be. KRS 507.030(1)(b). According to the Commentary prepared by the drafter of this portion of the Penal Code, The most significant change brought about by subsection (1)(b) is an abandonment of the common law requirement that the killing occur in `sudden heat of passion' upon `adequate provocation.' Adopted in its place is the requirement that the homicide be committed `under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse.' Under this standard, which was borrowed from the Model Penal Code, mitigation is not restricted to circumstances which would constitute provocation `in the ordinary meaning of the term, i. e., an injury, injustice or affront perpetrated by the deceased upon the actor.' . . . In other words, it is possible for any event, or even words, to arouse extreme mental or emotional disturbance, as that phrase is used here. (Emphasis added.) A second significant change . . . is the addition of a subjective element to the test used for determining the mitigation issue. The test set forth is an objective one: Is there a `reasonable explanation or excuse' for the mental or emotional disturbance? But, in making that determination, the triers of fact are required to place themselves in the actor's position as he believed it to be at the time of his act. This is intended to replace the common law requirement that the provocation must be of a nature calculated to inflame the passions of the ordinary reasonable man. KRS 507.030, Commentary (1974). Although the substantive factors reducing murder to manslaughter are thus made different by the new statute, the procedural aspects remain unchanged. The Commonwealth still has the burden of proof, but in order to justify an instruction on the lower degree there must be something in the evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt whether the defendant is guilty of murder or manslaughter. Evidence suggesting that a defendant was guilty of a lesser offense is, in fact and in principle, a defense against the higher charge, though it is not a `defense' within the technical meaning of that term as used in the Kentucky Penal Code, cf. KRS 500.070. Brown v. Commonwealth, Ky., 555 S.W.2d 252, 257 (1977). An instruction on voluntary manslaughter is proper only in those instances where there is evidence that will support the giving of the instruction. Elmore v. Commonwealth, Ky., 520 S.W.2d 328, 331 (1975). We have adopted the rule that where the evidence is wholly circumstantial and the facts lead inescapably to the conclusion that the crime, whoever committed it, was murder, there being no evidence of a struggle or other unusual circumstances from which the jury might infer a lesser degree of the crime, the accused is not entitled either to a manslaughter or self-defense instruction. Brown v. Commonwealth, Ky., 275 S.W.2d 928, 933 (1955). That was the law prior to the Penal Code, and it continues to be the law under the Penal Code. An instruction on murder need not require the jury to find that the defendant was not acting under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance unless there is something in the evidence to suggest that he was, thereby affording room for a reasonable doubt in that respect. Cf. Brown v. Commonwealth, Ky., 555 S.W.2d 252, 257 (1977). In this case there was no eyewitness evidence of the killing, and the defendant himself did not testify. Assuming that he was the guilty party, as the jury found him to be, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that he was acting under the influence of an emotional disturbance, or that there were any circumstances existing at the time of the killing to provoke or stimulate such a disturbance, except for the evidence that he suffered from a mental illness from which the jury could have found, but did not find, that he was insane. The nature of that illness was chronic paranoid schizophrenia, which was characterized not only as an extreme emotional disturbance, but the most severe personality disorder that we are able to diagnose. There is much to be said for the proposition that an emotional disturbance inhering in a mental illness is not the kind of an emotional disturbance contemplated by the statute, in view of its historical development and the expression in the Commentary to the effect that it may be aroused by any event, or even words, as quoted above. Assuming, however, that a mental disorder, whether or not it amounts to legal insanity, may constitute a reasonable explanation or excuse for extreme emotional disturbance, it was incumbent upon the trial court to require the negating of that factor in its instruction on murder, which was done. That is not to say that once the issue is raised (by evidence sufficient to ground a reasonable doubt) the Commonwealth must meet it with countervailing evidence. Unless the evidence raising the issue is of such probative force that otherwise the defendant would be entitled as a matter of law to an acquittal on the higher charge (murder), the prosecution is not required to come forth with negating evidence in order to sustain its burden of proof. Cf. Brown v. Commonwealth, Ky., 555 S.W.2d 252, 257, fn. 6 (1977). Otherwise it would never be possible to convict a defendant of murder if there were no eyewitnesses and if, for example, he testifies that he acted in self-defense, or was intoxicated out of his mind, or was acting under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance. [5] While it is true that the extreme emotional disturbance phase of the murder instruction did not include the additional statutory language, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the standpoint of a person in the defendant's circumstances as the defendant believed them to be, we are of the opinion that the omission was proper. Obviously that particular language is appropriate only when there is evidence suggesting that the emotional disturbance was precipitated by some event or circumstance the defendant believed to exist. In this case there was no evidence to suggest that the appellant's motivation involved any belief on his part with regard to the circumstances that induced the alleged emotional disturbance. Ratliff v. Commonwealth, Ky., 567 S.W.2d 307 (1978), is factually distinguishable in this particular respect. Although the form of the instruction given by the trial court on first-degree manslaughter (based on extreme emotional disturbance) does not conform to this court's conception of proper instructions in that respect (see, e. g., Palmore and Lawson, Kentucky Instructions to Juries, Sec. 2.01, Instructions 2 and 5, and Sec. 2.02, Instructions 2 and 3), it was given exactly as offered by defense counsel, and it did provide a vehicle by which the jury could have found Gall guilty of a lesser offense than murder if it had been so disposed. So, even though we are not entirely convinced that Gall was entitled to any instruction whatever based on the mitigating theory of emotional disturbance, we are of the opinion that under the circumstances of the case there was no substantial error in the manner in which it was submitted to the jury. Instruction No. 3 presented the defense of insanity, and was in correct form except for its use of the words, by a preponderance of the evidence in lieu of from the evidence. Again, this portion of the instruction was given exactly as requested by Gall. Now, as a result, we find his appellate counsel crying out that preponderance of the evidence should have been defined. This court disapproves the use of that terminology. From the evidence is sufficient in all civil cases, and with the qualifying phrase beyond a reasonable doubt it is sufficient in a criminal case. We would not for that reason, however, reverse this judgment. There is no reason to suppose or suspect that the jurors were ignorant bumpkins. Instruction No. 4 paraphrased that portion of RCr 9.56 referring to reasonable doubt as to degree, but did not specify which of the two offenses covered by the preceding instructions was the higher degree. [6] No doubt any juror with common sense would be able to figure that out for himself, but here again we encounter a claim of prejudice that could easily have been avoided. A careful instruction on the matter of degree should clarify the relationship between the murder and first-degree manslaughter instructions by stating in substance that if the jury believes beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant would be guilty under the murder instruction except for its having a reasonable doubt as to whether he was acting under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance, it shall not find him guilty of murder, but shall find him guilty of first-degree manslaughter. See e. g., Palmore and Lawson, Kentucky Instructions to Juries, Sec. 2.01, Instruction 5, and Sec. 2.02, Instruction 3. Though a better instruction on doubt as to degree could have been given, Instruction No. 4 did meet the requirements of RCr 9.56 in that particular respect and was not prejudicially erroneous. Gall's appellate counsel complain also that the trial court did not define the term reasonable doubt and did not instruct the jury in so many words that the Commonwealth bore the burden of proof. There was no error in either respect. The subject was discussed in Whorton v. Commonwealth, Ky., 570 S.W.2d 627, 631-632 (1978), and there have been no authoritative decisions since that time to suggest either that reasonable doubt must be defined or that specific reference should be made to the burden of proof. Several points are made with regard to the alleged misconduct of the prosecuting attorney. It is said, for example, that he invaded Gall's right to a fair trial by belittling his defense of insanity and by misportraying various items of evidence in his concluding remarks to the jury. To be mercifully brief, we do not find in this record any conduct by the prosecuting attorney that could be said to have been inconsistent with Gall's right to a fair trial. Another argument is that by informing the prospective jurors during voir dire that the Commonwealth would not introduce any confession the prosecuting attorney was in effect commenting wrongfully on Gall's silence. We do not draw such an inference. There is nothing particularly wrong in advising the jurors that the prosecution will rely on circumstantial evidence. When he was arrested at the end of the Gardnersville incident Gall made several statements with respect to the weapon he had in his possession, the number of shots he had fired at Trooper Carey, and the reason he had fired them. During direct examination of the officer to whom these statements had been made the prosecuting attorney asked if he had tried to talk to Gall at greater length about other matters, to which the witness replied, Yes, but he wouldn't talk. In other words, that is all he would say? That is all he said. We do not construe this exchange as an attempt to comment on Gall's silence, nor do we think that it was likely to draw the jury's attention to Gall's silence. [7] During voir dire one of the prospective jurors (a Mrs. Koenig, upon whom the defense later exercised one of its peremptory challenges), under interrogation by defense counsel, said that she could acquit Gall on the ground of insanity if he was taken care of . . . if he were taken out of society. Counsel thereupon attempted to inform Mrs. Koenig that in the event of an acquittal on the basis of insanity certain civil commitment procedures are available, but upon objection by the prosecuting attorney the court would not permit him to continue. No further effort was made during the proceedings to enlighten the jury in this respect. Citing the fact that this court has held it permissible for the prosecutor to point out in his closing argument that in the event of an acquittal on grounds of insanity there is no assurance that the defendant will not soon be at large again, Jewell v. Commonwealth, Ky., 549 S.W.2d 807, 812 (1977), but has held also that the defendant is not entitled to an instruction advising the jury that in the event of his being found not guilty by reason of insanity he can be committed, Edwards v. Commonwealth, Ky., 554 S.W.2d 380, 383-384 (1977), Gall argues that we have created a legal monstrosity which deprives the defendant of due process. It should be understood, however, that Edwards does not prohibit defense counsel from reminding the jury that if the defendant is acquitted on the grounds of insanity at the time of the offense, and if he lapses into that condition again, there are legal means to bring about his commitment, because that is the simple truth. But it cannot be truthfully said that he will be committed, because if he is sane enough to be participating in the trial there is very little likelihood of his being validly found insane immediately thereafter. The most that defense counsel can say, and we have never held that he cannot say it, is that if after the defendant is acquitted there appear reasonable grounds to believe he is insane and ought to be committed to an institution, he can be tried in a civil commitment proceeding. We adhere, however, to the view that the prospects of what may or can happen after the verdict do not belong in the instructions given by the court to the jury. There is no sensible due process question in this respect.