Court Opinion

ID: 9516475
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:43:11.829551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:14.690286
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE CRAVEN dissenting. The issue in this appeal is not the defendant’s guilt but rather whether he is criminally responsible for his conduct. Psychiatric testimony that was uncontradicted was to the effect that the defendant’s impulses were uncontrollable, and as I view the psychiatric testimony it constituted a description of pyromania. There is nothing in the record by way of expert or lay opinion that impeaches, contradicts, challenges or in any way overcomes this psychiatric testimony. The rule in Illinois is that a person is not criminally responsible for his conduct if at the time of the conduct and as a result of a mental disease or mental defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. (Sec. 6-2 of ch. 38, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969.) While a person is presumed sane, once evidence of insanity is introduced, the ordinary presumption of sanity does not prevail and the burden is cast upon the State to prove that at the time of the commission of the offense the accused had sufficient capacity to be criminally responsible. People v. Count (1st Dist. 1969), 106 Ill.App.2d 258, 246 N.E.2d 91; People v. Haun (4th Dist. 1966), 71 Ill.App.2d 262, 217 N.E.2d 470; People v. Jackson (1st Dist. 1969), 116 Ill.App.2d 304, 253 N.E.2d 527. The majority opinion relies upon the observations in Count. In the Count case there seems to have been a conflict in the evidence with reference to the defendant’s mental capacity. A hearing had been held to determine the defendant’s competency to stand trial. A psychiatrist testified that defendant understood the nature of the charge and was able to cooperate with counsel. This, coupled with other testimony introduced at the trial, led the court to the conclusion that there was a fact question for the jury. In this case the psychiatric testimony was uncontradicted and unimpeached. I am unable to accept the conclusion that one who is described as not of a capacity to be held criminally responsible can be held to be so merely by a showing of detailed planning of the illegal act. Evidence of deviousness or cunning in the planning and execution of antisocial acts is not necessarily even relevant to the issue of mental condition. The evidence in this record casts the burden upon the People to prove that at the time of committing the act the accused was legally sane, i.e., criminally responsible for his conduct. People v. Le May (1966), 35 Ill.2d 208, 220 N.E.2d 184. This record shows a complete failure in sustaining that burden, for there is no evidence on the issue.