Court Opinion

ID: 9469430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:40:12.246635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:22.860075
License: Public Domain

RANDALL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
Emery admits that he robbed the San Antonio bank. The single issue in the court below was whether Emery had the capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. We are required to decide whether evidence of an extrinsic offense, a bank robbery in Atlanta, is relevant to that issue.
The majority states that psychiatrists for the government described Emery as having the ability to make a choice between bank robbery and some other means of obtaining money. In their view, robbery was not part of Emery’s delusion. The significance of this testimony is that if we were assessing the sufficiency of the evidence (which we have not been asked to do), there would be sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. The majority goes on to say that in the context of this history, the Atlanta robbery may represent simply a voluntary decision to disobey the law though Emery has the capacity to conform. I agree — it may. But then again, it may not. Where I part company with the majority is its conclusion that when Emery robbed the Atlanta bank, “he nevertheless continued to possess the ability to resist a criminal impulse.” How can evidence that Emery robbed the Atlanta bank be probative of his ability, continued or otherwise, to resist a criminal impulse?
One thing is for sure. It is evidence that he is a bank robber. It may, therefore, have been highly prejudicial.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.