Court Opinion

ID: 9733368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:05:12.544288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:40.839269
License: Public Domain

WeiNTRAub, C. J.
(dissenting). The trial court surely did not intend to undercut the psychiatric testimony either with respect to guilt or the degree of the homicide. Rather, the trial court was thinking of background” evidence as such, offered upon the issue of punishment. State v. Mount, 30 N. J. 195, 219 (1959). The instruction in question was designed to state the singular role of such proof. Trial counsel for defendant, a man of considerable experience in criminal matters, quite obviously did not detect a direction nullifying the psychiatric testimony, for he did not object to this portion of the charge. And I cannot believe that the jury, instructed to consider the issue of insanity, would have understood the trial court intended by indirection to withdraw that issue by striking the psychiatric testimony from the case. A fair understanding of the charge would be that if the jury found defendant was sane and killed his mother with premeditation, deliberation and willfulness, it could not acquit him because of his background experiences but could consider those experiences in deciding upon punishment. I cannot say there was plain error on the entire record.
I would affirm.
*67For reversal — Justices Jaoobs, FRANCIS, Peootoe, Hall, SohettiNO and HaNEMAN — 6.
For affirmance — Chief Justice WeiNTRAub — -1.