Opinion ID: 498379
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: This Court's 1973 Holding

Text: 20 As indicated above, the 1973 opinion of the panel that heard Greene's direct appeal was not as explicit in every detail as it might have been. It is nonetheless clear to us that that panel fully considered and resolved the question which Greene now presents on collateral review. 21 In particular, the panel necessarily, albeit implicitly, held that where a defense of insanity is interposed to a felony murder prosecution, the standard for determining sanity is the one specified for the crime of felony murder, and not the standard applicable to the underlying felony. This is clear from the court's holding that [t]he provision of the Court Reform Act making its provisions relating to the defense of insanity applicable to offenses committed in the District of Columbia, clearly has application to ... count 3 (felony murder committed while perpetrating the crime of rescuing a federal prisoner).... 489 F.2d at 1153. 9 In addition, it is clear that the 1973 panel, like this panel, considered only proof of the elements of the underlying felony, not actual conviction of it, a prerequisite to a felony murder conviction. Had the court not held this view, it could not have upheld Greene's felony murder conviction--as it did--while vacating his conviction on the underlying rescue felony. 22 These findings could result only in the conclusion that there was no reason to apply any sanity burden other than that applicable to the crime charged, i.e., felony murder under section 22-2401 of the D.C.Code. 10 The only issue left open by this court fourteen years ago was whether the D.C. insanity burden could have been applied to a U.S. Code offense standing alone, see 489 F.2d at 1157-58, but that situation is not before us. We hold, therefore, that the issue now raised by Greene was decided by this court on direct review, 11 and that collateral attack is inappropriate. While it could be said that our illumination of this court's 1973 decision comes long after the fact, we believe that society's strong interest in the finality of convictions, see, e.g., Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 261-62, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 2065-66, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973) (Powell, J., concurring), is not overcome simply because this court failed to state explicitly what it undoubtedly implied.