Court Opinion

ID: 9447449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:35:31.541998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:03.206120
License: Public Domain

WILBUR K. MILLER, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
I cannot concur in the reversal of the. judgment which found the appellant not guilty by reason of insanity.
Because the only defense was insanity, appellant’s counsel agreed that the facts concerning the alleged offenses should be stipulated, but that evidence should be introduced regarding the insanity issue. The prosecuting attorney stated the stipulation as he understood it. Minor amendments suggested by Rucker himself were stated by his counsel. Then the following occurred:
“The Court: Then, Mr. Rucker, do you now agree that the facts stated by the District Attorney, as amended by your attorney, in speaking to you, are the true facts?
“The Defendant: Well, they are the true facts except that I didn’t tell the boy that I was going to kill everyone in the house.
“Mr. McIntyre [the Assistant U. S. Attorney]: Could I ask this question: Did you tell the boy that you would kill him ?
“The Defendant: No, I told him to leave.
“Mr. McIntyre: Was anything said when you fired the shot?
“The Defendant: No, I didn’t say anything afterward until he de*626cided that he was going to stay there, and I fired the shot in order to scare him. Then, after that, he left.
“Mr. McIntyre: The Government is satisfied, your Honor.
. “The Court: Very well. Then the Court will accept the facts, as now shown. by the record as being the true facts.”
Following the stipulation, a psychiatrist was introduced by the appellant who testified Rucker’s action was the product of a mental disease from which he was then suffering. As the Government offered nothing to establish sanity, the court found Rucker not guilty by reason of insanity. This is the judgment from which he appeals.
The majority say:
“ * * * That defendant knew the question of his guilt, mental competence aside, was being conceded on the basis of facts ambiguously pieced together as we have described, without submission to him for final agreement, and that he acquiesced in this concession, is left in too much doubt for us to accept the result with confidence * *
In my opinion, the stipulation of facts was not “ambiguously pieced together,” but was a clear statement of what was undoubtedly criminal conduct, except for the plea of insanity. Nor do I agree that it was not submitted to Rucker. He •expressly agreed to it, with the amendment that he did not intend to kill, but fired the shot to scare his stepson, — an .amendment which was accepted by the •Government and the court. I think the -record shows Rucker knew exactly what ■was going on.
This stipulation, as amended by Ruck-er to eliminate an intent to kill, was suffi•cient to convict him under count 1 of simple assault, an offense included therein, and of the possession of a rifle with intent to use it unlawfully against another under count 2, except for the showing of insanity.
In reversing, the majority say the finding of not guilty by reason of insanity implies a finding that otherwise Ruck-er would have been guilty of assault with intent to kill. I do not agree. The judgment of not guilty by reason of insanity means, I think, that Rucker was not legally and morally responsible for the criminal acts he stipulated he had committed, which were included in the indictment.
When he committed those acts, Rucker was either an insane person or a vicious criminal, even though he fired the shot only to scare his stepson. I see no reason for him to complain when, on evidence introduced by him, he was classified as the former.