Opinion ID: 2295347
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Procedures for Determining Whether a Trial Court May Raise an Insanity Defense Sua Sponte

Text: It is the government's position that a finding of competency to stand trial is, in itself, sufficient indication that the defendant is capable of intelligently waiving an insanity defense and that the court should not look further when deciding whether to raise the defense sua sponte. We disagree. Such a finding indicates only that a defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding  and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him. Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402, 80 S.Ct. 788, 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960) (per curiam). This standard is designed to indicate whether the accused knows enough about the facts of the case to relate them coherently to his or her attorney and to understand the nature of the proceedings. It is not intended to measure whether the defendant is also capable of making intelligent decisions on important matters relating to the defense. Cf. United States v. David, 167 U.S.App.D.C. 117, 124 n.19, 511 F.2d 355, 362 n.19 (1975) (waiver of jury trial); Sieling v. Eyman, 478 F.2d 211, 214-15 (9th Cir. 1973) (entry of guilty plea); In re Williams, 165 F.Supp. 879, 881 (D.D.C.) (same), order modified on other grounds, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 18, 259 F.2d 175 (1958), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 982, 85 S.Ct. 689, 13 L.Ed.2d 572 (1965). But see United States ex rel. McGough v. Hewitt, 528 F.2d 339, 342 n.2 (3d Cir. 1976). See generally Westbrook v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 150, 86 S.Ct. 1320, 16 L.Ed.2d 429 (1966) (per curiam). For this reason, we hold that whenever the evidence suggests a substantial question of the defendant's sanity at the time of the crime, the trial judge must conduct an inquiry designed to assure that the defendant has been fully informed of the alternatives available, comprehends the consequences of failing to assert the defense, and freely chooses to raise or waive the defense. The scope of the inquiry for this determination will vary according to the circumstances present in each case, especially in relation to the background and condition of the defendant. See Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938). [28] It is important to note, however, that because the court is dealing with an individual whose sanity has been questioned, a cursory explanation or a rote interrogation cannot satisfy the court's duty. Cf. Hawkins, supra 385 A.2d at 747 (waiver of right to jury trial); David, supra, 167 U.S.App.D.C. at 123, 511 F.2d at 361 (same). In some instances, nonetheless, it may be sufficient for a trial judge to advise the defendant of the possible consequences of the insanity plea, become assured that the defendant understands those consequences by questioning the defendant about his or her reasons for rejecting the defense, and make a decision on the basis of the reasons given, the manner in which they are expressed, and any evidence of the defendant's mental capacity already in the record. In other cases, the judge still may have doubts after such an inquiry and may desire additional information. In those situations the judge may order psychiatric examinations to determine whether the defendant's mental condition has impaired his or her ability to decide whether to raise the defense. [29] At this point, the judge may choose to appoint amicus counsel to present evidence concerning the defendant's mental capacity. If the judge finds that the defendant is capable of making a voluntary and intelligent decision to forego an insanity defense, the judge must respect the defendant's decision and permit the jury's verdict to stand. See People v. Redmond, supra, 16 Cal.App.3d at 938, 94 Cal.Rptr. at 548. If, on the other hand, the judge is convinced that the defendant can not or has not made such a voluntary and intelligent waiver, the judge has the discretion to raise that defense sua sponte. [30] The strength of the individual's potential insanity defense should not be a factor in the court's decision, except to the extent that such evidence is useful in determining whether the defendant presently is capable of rationally deciding to reject the defense. [31] In this case, Judge Ugast conducted a thorough inquiry into Paula Frendak's condition at the time of the crime and considered her present opposition to the defense. He did not however, make a specific finding with regard to whether Frendak had made an intelligent and voluntary decision on whether to raise the defense. He stated, in fact, that he would be less than candid if he did not also point out that the Court would have reservations about her ability to appreciate all facets of such a decision on her own mental health. . . This statement suggests that the court had doubts about whether Frendak was making an intelligent and voluntary decision. Accordingly, we must remand the case for further proceedings. Because the trial court has already conducted an extensive inquiry into the question of appellant's sanity, the court, on remand, may decide that it already has sufficient evidence to make a determination. If so, no further inquiry is necessary. See Sieling, supra at 215. Recognizing the inherent difficulties of making a retrospective determination of the validity of a waiver made years before, however, we leave to the trial court the option of conducting a new hearing to decide whether Frendak would still choose to refuse an insanity defense, and whether she would now voluntarily and intelligently waive that defense. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 148 (1966); Dusky v. United States, supra, 362 U.S. at 403, 80 S.Ct. 788; David, supra 167 U.S.App.D.C. at 124-25, 511 F.2d at 362-63. If the court finds that Frendak did not intelligently and voluntarily reject an insanity defense (or, if necessary, finds that Frendak is not so rejecting it after remand)  and the court thus decides that interposing the defense is an appropriate exercise of its discretion  the insanity acquittal will be valid. [32] If, however, the court decides that Frendak has made (or is making) a free choice with adequate comprehension of the consequences, then her conviction will stand and the trial judge may enter sentence accordingly. See Redmond, supra, 16 Cal. App.3d at 938, 94 Cal.Rptr. at 548. So ordered. KERN, Associate Judge, concurring: This case poses for the trial court quite a difficult question: What action should a trial judge take when confronted with evidence which raises a sufficient question as to a defendant's mental responsibility at the time of the crime, yet the defendant, adjudged competent to stand trial, insists the defense of insanity should not be raised? On the one hand, Whalem v. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 331, 346 F.2d 812 (en banc), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 862, 86 S.Ct. 124, 15 L.Ed.2d 100 (1965), requires the trial court to interpose the defense of insanity to forestall the conviction of one who in the eyes of the law is not mentally responsible for his otherwise criminal acts. On the other hand, Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), and North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), decided by the Supreme Court subsequent to Whalem, emphasize that criminal defendants must be allowed themselves to make the truly significant decisions concerning the course of their defense. This court, properly in my view, accommodates Whalem with Alford and Faretta by concluding that when there is evidence sufficient to support the defense of insanity yet the defendant objects to raising such defense we require the judge to respect the choice of a defendant capable of voluntarily and intelligently making that choice. The court will now have the discretion to raise an insanity defense sua sponte only if the defendant is not capable of making, and has not made, an intelligent and voluntary decision. [At 379; (emphasis added.)] It seems to me that our decision enables a trial judge to strike the proper balance between preventing guilt from being imposed upon a defendant not mentally responsible for his otherwise criminal act yet permitting the defendant, who is capable of choosing and who must bear the ultimate consequence of his choice, to decide finally whether to accept conviction and risk possible imprisonment or to avoid criminal responsibility and risk possible hospitalization. Given the extraordinary importance to both the community and a defendant of his decision to waive the insanity defense, it seems correct to conclude, as we do in this opinion, that a defendant's competency to undergo trial, standing alone, does not automatically mean that at trial he is also capable of voluntarily and intelligently waiving the defense of insanity. Rather, this court concludes, (At 380): [T]he trial judge must conduct an inquiry designed to assure that the defendant has been fully informed of the alternatives available, comprehends the consequences of failing to assert the defense, and freely chooses to raise or waive the defense. Here, the conscientious trial judge, with the assistance of amicus, assumed that since the defendant was competent to stand trial, it followed she was competent also to decide not to raise the defense of insanity. However, he expressed reservations about her ability to appreciate all facets . . . [of her decision not to defend on the basis of insanity] if a higher degree of competency [than competency to stand trial] is required with respect to the ability to make that decision. Under these circumstances a remand is necessary so that the trial court can ascertain whether the defendant was capable of waiving the insanity defense. If so, the court must accept her decision and proceed to impose punishment; if not, proceedings appropriate after a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity must take place. GALLAGHER, Associate Judge, concurring in the result: I do not have the difficulty the majority opinion has with the United States Circuit Court's decision in Whalem, [1] especially when one examines the way it has been later applied in the progeny of Whalem by the United States District Courts in this jurisdiction. After all, except as an academic exercise, it does not now matter so much what a landmark decision may have stated many years ago if it has been interpreted and honed over the succeeding years. The more important thing at this juncture is to look at the present state of the law as it has emanated from the landmark decision. I will discuss first what genuine effect, if any, Alford and Faretta have had on the issue in this case. I will then look briefly at Whalem to determine whether it has the shortcomings the majority attributes to it, and then examine whether in the succeeding 15 years the United States District Court appears to have had any real difficulty applying it as it pertains to a defendant's declination to plead insanity. What apparently triggered the re-examination of Whalem in this case is the contention that Whalem was shaken by the decisions in North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), where the Supreme Court decided that it was not unconstitutional to accept a guilty plea from a defendant who nevertheless protests his innocence, and in Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), where the Supreme Court decided that under the Sixth Amendment a defendant has the right to represent himself at his trial, no matter how ill-advised the choice may appear. Actually, neither Alford nor Faretta approaches the different considerations laid bare in Whalem : One of the major foundations for the structure of the criminal law is the concept of responsibility, and the law is clear that one whose acts would otherwise be criminal has committed no crime at all if because of incapacity due to age or mental condition he is not responsible for those acts. If he does not know what he is doing or cannot control his conduct or his acts are the product of a mental disease or defect, he is morally blameless and not criminally responsible. The judgment of society and the law in this respect is tested in any given case by an inquiry into the sanity of the accused. In other words, the legal definition of insanity in a criminal case is a codification of the moral judgment of society as respects a man's criminal responsibility; and if a man is insane in the eyes of the law, he is blameless in the eyes of society and is not subject to punishment in the criminal courts. In the courtroom confrontations between the individual and society the trial judge must uphold this structural foundation by refusing to allow the conviction of an obviously mentally irresponsible defendant, and when there is sufficient question as to a defendant's mental responsibility at the time of the crime, that issue must become part of the case. Just as the judge must insist that the corpus delicti be proved before a defendant who has confessed may be convicted, so too must the judge forestall the conviction of one who in the eyes of the law is not mentally responsible for his otherwise criminal acts. We believe then that, in the pursuit of justice, a trial judge must have the discretion to impose an unwanted defense on a defendant and the consequent additional burden of proof on the Government prosecutor. So, our query is whether in this case there was a combination of factors which required the trial judge to inject the insanity issue for, if such factors existed, his failure to do so is an abuse of discretion and constitutes error. [ Id. 120 U.S.App.D.C., at 337-38, 346 F.2d at 819-20; emphasis added; footnotes omitted.] We have previously rejected the contention that Faretta overrules Whalem in the matter of a sua sponte hearing. We said in Clyburn v. United States, D.C.App., 381 A.2d 260, 263-64 n.7 (1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 999, 98 S.Ct. 1656, 56 L.Ed.2d 90 (1978): Faretta does not hold that a court must recognize an incompetent or insane defendant's right to represent himself. The right to conduct one's own defense would indeed be hollow under such circumstances. Moreover, the right to counsel and the defense of insanity rest on different considerations; the former affords protection against the sovereign, while the latter, if successful, removes culpability in the absence of the requisite mental state. I see no reason to disturb this conclusion, even if a division of this court might properly do so, as it seems to me to be not seriously in doubt. I might say the Supreme Court commented in Faretta that the right of self-representation has been protected by statute since the beginnings of our Nation. . . . With few exceptions, each of the several States also accords a defendant the right to represent himself. . .. 422 U.S. at 812-13, 95 S.Ct. at 2530. Consequently, there is scarcely anything new or startling about the concept of Faretta. The majority complains that, among other things, Whalem does not show sufficient sensitivity to the desire of the defendant to refrain from an insanity defense. The fact of the matter is that Whalem necessarily respected the desire of the defendant in holding there was no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in not sua sponte injecting the insanity defense. 120 U.S. App.D.C. at 338, 346 F.2d at 819. Later on, in United States v. Robertson, 165 U.S.App.D.C. 325, 507 F.2d 1148 (1974), a progeny of Whalem, the same court stated what seems to be inherent from Whalem : [S]ince it is a defendant's rejection which triggers a Whalem inquiry, that rejection should not have been controlling. [ Id. 165 U.S.App.D.C. at 377, 507 F.2d at 1160; emphasis in original.] The court goes on to say that [the defendant's] rejection and his reasons for it should have been weighed with evidence derived from a full presentation of testimony relevant to the issue of criminal responsibility. [ Id. ; emphasis added.] That seems plain enough. True it is that Whalem expressly declined to lay down a rigid standard to bind the trial court in deciding whether to require the insanity issue to be submitted, and instead left the problem to the trial court to resolve  as a matter of discretion on a case to case basis. However, contrary to the majority opinion, I do not view that as manifesting insensitivity to the wishes of the defendant. Certainly it does not appear to have been construed insensitively by the United States District Court in this jurisdiction. On remand in United States v. Robertson, 430 F.Supp. 444 (D.D.C.1977), for example, the District Court fashioned what strikes me as sensible, workable criteria which might well be utilized by the trial court on remand in this case in resolving the issue: (a) the quality of the evidence supporting the insanity defense; (b) the defendant's wish in the matter; (c) the quality of defendant's decision not to raise the defense; (d) the reasonableness of defendant's motives in opposing presentation of the defense; (e) the Court's personal observations of the defendant throughout the course of the proceedings against him. [ Id. at 446.] It seems to me that Whalem has not caused any difficulty of implementation over the years in the District Court in this jurisdiction. That court seems to have gone about its business in doing so, as has the Circuit Court of Appeals. As the majority opinion points out, in cases posing the problem sometimes the trial judges have decided to raise sua sponte the insanity defense and sometimes they have not. The Circuit Court has almost always affirmed. [2] There is an established body of law in this jurisdiction on this question which seems entirely reasonable, and is there for guidance. I see no reason not to utilize it.