*1 upon plaintiffs the retrial will hope that princi- some of the elemental
keep in mind damages evidence as to pertaining to
ples present objec- will that defendant its at the time the facts are any. proof
tions in order that the court
being presented validity at the time that the upon its
pass purpose. some We see no
objection serves trial, proceeding
objection to bifurcated determination of with the
first finds, if the so then liability, that same the facts
presenting to damages. judgments already have reversed cases, and we now direct in the two
entered upon proceedings remand of the there the issues of both
be a new damages consistent with this
liability and
opinion. party The court directs that each appeal. its their own costs in this
bear DODGE, Appellant
Theresa
(Defendant below), Wyoming, Appellee STATE
(Plaintiff below).
No. 4671.
Supreme Wyoming. Court of
March
305
2. A ruling on voluntariness of state- ments by defendant. given by instruction
3. A drunkenness jury. 4. Refusal of the court to instruct on the *3 consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency. evidence support to Substantial verdict.
We will affirm. defendant, following drinking some The downing vodka, a tumbler of after and provocation, any apparent stabbed without Oldman—a cut Lorraine three-inch and with a knife. eye When the over gash Brown, tried to Royce help Lor- deceased raine, fatally stabbed him the defendant Despite heart. Miranda warn- through the Hart, R. and Charles D. Cannon Kim immediately before and follow- given ings Sheridan, Davis, signed the brief & Burgess being custody, taken into defendant ing her appeared in oral D. Cannon Kim and according and to person in the first stated appellant. of the on behalf argument him, him”; witnesses, “I killed I killed “she Gen., Mendicino, Gerald Atty. V. Frank him, sorry she had killed sorry that Gen., Div. Criminal Stack, Atty. Deputy A. him”; evil;” she’d stabbed “I’m Intern., Johnson, Chey- Legal Allen C. meant to kill.” are “Knives Johnson and Allen C. the brief enne, signed arraignment, At entered Wolfe, Prosecut- County and N. James guilty,” guilty by of “not “not pleas reason appeared in County, Atty., Sheridan ing or deficiency mental illness at the time of appellee. of on behalf argument oral offenses,” and alleged by “not triable of GUTHRIE, J., and McCLIN- C. Before present mental illness or deficien- reason of ROSE, JJ. RAPER, TOCK, THOMAS battery to a count of assault and while cy” dangerous weapon in with a viola- armed RAPER, Justice. 6-70B, W.S.1957,Cum.Supp., of tion § found appellant-defendant manslaughter in violation of 6- a count § bat- and assault and manslaughter guilty trial, prior Just W.S.1957. de- following weapon, dangerous awith tery personally advised the court on the trial, regularly sentenced. She jury not contest her doing that she did record involving: raising issues appeals, then stood on the defense of the acts. She guilty by reason of mental illness or oral statements discovery of 1. Denial deficiency.1 police. of defendant special If verdict the finds that the By procedure, trial was a bifurcated W.S.1957, acts, 242.5, did in fact commit such then Section avoided. 7— 191, S.L.Wyo.1975, pro- remaining be heard on the shall evidence Ch. § amended vides: alleged criminal offense and of the elements responsibility the mental the issue of couples plea on the defendant. of not “(a) a by a defendant When In addition to other forms of guilty plea reason guilty of not jury, shall submitted court verdict deficiency, shall be a there illness or jury may which the find a verdict submit proof before same sequential order guilty First, reason of mental the defendant illness trial. a continuous deficiency excluding responsibility. or special taken on verdict and a be heard shall beyond prove “(b) prosecution shall committed in fact whether all the alleged doubt elements the of- offense. reasonable charged criminal acts 7-242.4, W.S.1957, Cum.Supp., case, or of statements made by
Section
or
part, defines mental illness
de-
witnesses or prospective
State
wit-
pertinent
State
excluding
responsibility:
(other
defendant)
ficiency
criminal
nesses
than
gov-
agents except
ernmental
as provided in
responsible for
A
is not
crimi-
“(a)
person
(c) of
(Emphasis
subdivision
this rule.”
if at
time of the criminal
conduct
nal
added.)
conduct,
of mental illness or
result
capacity
substantial
deficiency, he lacked
No statement was taken from the defend-
appreciate
wrongfulness
either
falling
18(a),
ant
within Rule
W.R.Cr.P.:
or
his conduct
conduct
to conform
his
“Upon
defendant,
motion of a
the court
law:
requirements of
may order the attorney for the State to
section, the terms
“(i)
in this
As used
permit inspect
defendant to
copy
deficiency’ do not in-
'mental illness or
photograph
(1)
relevant
written or
only by
manifested
abnormality
an
clude
recorded statements or confessions made
*4
otherwise anti-social
or
repeated criminal
thereof,
by
copies
the defendant or
within
conduct.
possession,
the
or
custody
control of the
«
[*]
[*]
J1
State,
the existence which
of
is
known,
or
the
by
exercise of
diligence may
due
be-
hearing at
preliminary
a
which
Following
to
come known
the prosecuting attorney,
was
to the
defendant
bound over
dis-
the
(2)
reports
physical
results of
of
or men-
court,
right
for the
she moved
of in-
trict
tal examinations and of scientific tests or
reports of
of the
the Sheridan
spection
experiments made in connection with the
County
department
the City
sheriff’s
of
case,
particular
thereof,
or copies
within
pertained
police department which
Sheridan
possession, custody
the
or
of
control
the
any
by
made
bearing
oral statements
her
known,
the existence of which is
or
guilt
or innocence.
motion was
on her
the
by
of
diligence may
exercise
due
be-
by
judge,
ruling
the
defend-
denied
known,
come
to the prosecuting attorney,
error.
position
claims as
is
ant
Defendant’s
(3)
testimony
recorded
of a defendant
18(b),
complete conflict with Rule
in
W.R.
grand
before a
jury.”2
Cr.P.:
only papers
possession
in
of the sheriff
“Upon motion of a defendant the court
police department
and the
were their own
may order the prosecuting attorney to
reports,
contemplated
by the rule.
inspect
the defendant to
permit
copy
books,
documents,
papers,
photograph
or
Additionally,
defendant,
the
as a result of
objects,
tangible
buildings
places,
or
or
examination,
the preliminary
had access to
thereof,
copies
portions
or
which are
every
by
statement made
the defendant.
possession, custody
within the
or control
preliminary,
At
police
the
officers testified
State, upon
the
the
showing
of mate-
statements volunteered
defense,
riality
preparation
of his
without and before any interrogation by
request
that
is
the
reasonable. Ex-
any law enforcement official. At the scene
cept
(a)(2)
provided
in subdivision
this
killing,
stated,
of the
she spontaneously
“I
discovery
does not authorize the
rule
or
him.” An
stabbed
officer attempted to in-
inspection
reports,
memoranda or oth-
her
terrupt
speaking
from
out in order to
governmental
er
internal
documents
warning
read the Miranda
to her but she
by governmental agents
made
in connec- persisted
saying
in
and repeating,
it,
“I did
investigation
him,”
tion with the
I stabbed
“I stabbed the son-of-a-
charged
responsibility
fense
and the mental
No issue is raised as to the correctness
However, every
proceeding
of the defendant.
defendant
in the fashion followed.
presumed
mentally responsible
to be
reports
had
The defendant
the benefit of all
going
of first
the burden
forward and enter-
relating
grand
to her mental condition. No
ing
responsi-
evidence on the issue of mental
jury proceedings were had.
bility
the defendant.
in a
defendant and that
station
was never
police
route to the
refused—
En
bitch.”
police
reports;
access to the
car,
prod-
news came over
work
police
way to
county
and city
died on
uct of
law
her victim had
enforcement
that
radio
him,
that,
properly
“I killed
was refused and
so.
yelled
personnel
hospital. She
him.”
killed
him,
sorry
I’m
I
I stabbed
also must
at
wonder
defendant’s
made
were
statements
these
None
statements,
concern with her
great
which
en-
any law
question by
any
response
had
already
knowledge,
light
she
it
preliminary,
At the
officer.
forcement
killing
fact that she admitted
and the
station,
police
that at
testified
also
battery by stabbing
to the court
assault
question-
to a formal
proceeded
sheriff
trial. All her
to an
before
statements went
Miranda, rights to
reading the
ing. After
killing Royce
and stab-
admission
Brown
she understood
being satisfied that
her and
bing Lorraine Oldman. This will be dis-
happened. She
them,
her what
he asked
dealing
further
in our
with
cussed
defend-
him,
the son-of-a-
I killed
advised, “I killed
that
ant’s next claim
error. We hold
evil,
to kill.”
are made
bitch,
knives
I’m
deprived
was not
dis-
covery to which she was entitled.
repeated
testimony
All of
added nor deleted.
trial,
nothing
trial,
hearing
Prior
was held which
police
examination
camera
inAn
sought
suppress
state-
record, discloses
incorporated in
reports,
presence
made
of and
ments
the de
made
no additional
ground
they
on the
police,
officials.
to law enforcement
voluntary.
urges
Defendant
some
of discretion
be
abuse
must
*5
ruling
There
judge
denying suppression
in his
trial
discovery, before
refusing
in
judge
trial
they
have found
specially that
should
Hill,
denial,
v.
error. State
hold the
can
a
voluntary “beyond
we
reasonable doubt.”
“* * *
342;
v.
287, 507 P.2d
State
1973,
Kan.
ruling
211
was
court’s
as follows:
The
285,
P.2d 998.
1971,
Idaho
486
94
Bailey,
to
going
deny the motion to
The Court’s
reports
police
here. The
no abuse
see
oral
suppress
statements made
part
a
the record
made
of
Following
been
ruling,
have
that
defend-
defendant.”
an
eventually
accorded
she had killed Brown and
ant admitted
has failed to
see them.
to
She
pro-
opportunity
Lorraine Oldman and the
stabbed
argu
brief
this court
in her
to
out
point
responsibility.
on the issue of mental
ceeded
made
to statements
any reference
elimi-
ment
the acts
Defendant’s admission of
which
reports
in those
that,
contained
step
her
statutory procedural
nated
“ * * *
had not
cause which
have aided her
First,
would
be heard
evidence shall
preliminary
disclosed at the
the de-
previously
been
verdict taken on whether
special
a
hearing.
charged
acts
in fact committed the
fendant
”*
* *
alleged criminal offense.
constitutional
general
is no
There
7-242.5(a).
Section
case.
discovery
a criminal
right
-
1977,
did
presented
U.S.
of
then
Bursey,
The order
evidence
v.
Weatherford
proceed
contemplated by
as
statute.
30;
not
837,
Wardius
-,
51 L.Ed.2d
97 S.Ct.
2208,
7-242.5(b)
470,
provides that
the “de-
1973,
93
412
S.Ct.
Section
Oregon,
U.S.
v.
mentally respon-
presumed
that the
to be
This
not mean
does
L.Ed.2d
37
going
the burden of first
forward
favorable
suppress
can
evidence
sible
men-
entering evidence on the issue of
of evidence
Suppression
defendant.
responsibility
upon
vio-
the defendant.”
upon request
tal
to an accused
favorable
agreed
ma-
and the defendant
evidence is
But
State
where the
process
due
lates
order
a different
of evidence and
Brady
Maryland,
of
v. State
guilt.
terial
mental
1194,
proof
went forward with
83,
10 L.Ed.2d
1963,
83
State
U.S.
S.Ct.
373
the ele-
including
are
all
reports
responsibility
and sheriffs
police
The
expert psychiatric
the offense
be re-
but
would
ments
but
the State
evidence
well,
resting. The de-
testimony,
before
favorable
to disclose
quired
any objection
record,
raise
not now
flected
fendant does
the statements were
presented.
proof
which the
anything
but voluntary.
order
There is no evi-
smoothly
pro-
flow
under the
trial did
having
dence of their
been made
any
under
There was no
upon.
threat,
settled
violence,
cedure
form
brutality, duress,
issues would deal with
the sole
but what
pressure
promise
kind. They
responsibility
mental
and the were,
defendant’s
except for
statements testified to
the State each were aware
sheriff,
made gratuitously, origi-
the other
of the evidence of
so
burden
nated within the defendant herself and un-
signifi-
forward had no material
going
responsive
any interrogation. The state-
procedure adopted
was practi-
cance.
ment to the sheriff in response to
ques-
well,
cal,
gave
because it
an
tion was the same as the others and only
background by sequence
events,
essential
reading
uttered after a
of the Miranda
an informed transition
permitting
into the
rights and the sheriff being satisfied that
responsibility.
real issue of mental
they were understandingly received.
while the
But
statements of the defend-
The trial
ap
followed the
longer important
ant were no
as far as the
proved procedure in conducting
separate
constituting the
acts
crime were concerned
hearing
presence
out of the
the jury
because she admitted
had
she
killed Brown
determine
voluntariness of the state
Oldman, they
and had stabbed
were never-
ments. There must be separate
fair hear
an integral part
theless still
of the State’s
ing and a reliable determination on the
case related to its burden of establishing
issue
voluntariness in front of the judge
responsibility.
It was the State’s
alone before the
be re
burden to establish
she acted voluntar-
ceived
evidence at
the trial
for
making the
ily
incriminating
statements.
Lonquest
consideration.
supra;
“No confession or statement should be re-
Lego
Twomey,
404 U.S.
capable
ceived unless the maker was
S.Ct.
309 Lego having was been dragged in 1971. kicked head was returned the verdict private fair parts It is his January, 1972. and a statement until around decided not some immediately was then deputy there taken afterwards a assume that then measure, so to specific applicable finding No sheriff. of voluntari- Lon- error, made highest adopted. the was and the case passed ness on to avoid a norm quest did no more than observe to determine voluntariness. On court, by the trial record, then, followed prudently voluntariness was not mani- We now estab- followed. be fix one in the judge’s fested hearing. The Sims as a the evidence preponderance a lish decision advises: “ * * * standard.3 satisfactory Although the judge need not findings make formal of fact or write an urges that further The defendant his opinion, conclusion that the confession expressly stated have judge should trial voluntary appear must from the record ex voluntary and to be ” * * * clarity. with unmistakable deter applied in that measure pressed just a bald statement rather than finding, such a mination Without close conflict suppress oral statements motion to could evidence throw out confession at it would be agree denied. level, appellate although such is not the there suggest so and to do practice better before us. The case evidence before the arise the future occasion be some judge sufficient, alone was more than foresee such a determi can now we which implemented particularly when the de- critical, if the particularly be would nation of the fendant’s admission acts. Voluntari- Here, seriously dispute. evidence appear record, does here ness on the lopsid of voluntariness was so clarity. unmistakable judge have that the trial could edly obvious This is not only view consistent further conclusion.4 In at no other arrived with Sims but conforms to a further decla of her state of the voluntariness support Supreme ration United States Court the acts ments, admitted Denno, 1964, 368, in Jackson 378 84 U.S. the trial killing moved stabbing and 1774, 908, 12 L.Ed.2d 1 1205: A.L.R.3d S.Ct. deficiency stage. illness into * * * jurisdictions following “In 538, 1967, Georgia, 385 U.S. v. State Sims procedure, Massachusetts under which 593, 639, conformed 17 L.Ed.2d 87 S.Ct. _ jury passes on af- voluntariness 567, 126, after appeal 153 S.E.2d Ga. 223 fully and independently- ter the has 465, 65, 389 156 rev. Ga. S.E.2d remand accused, against resolved the issue 634, 523, con L.Ed.2d 88 S.Ct. U.S. are judge’s clearly conclusions evident dem 159 S.E.2d to 224 Ga. formed he the record since either admits the from making specif dangers onstrates *7 voluntary if into evidence it is confession before the findings. The evidence ic Moreover, rejects involuntary. it his or if a Sims showed confession judge alone upon disputed he are involuntary, findings issues of fact to have been the defendant standard, though complete, appears a reasonable doubt” there probably it not 3. While may well be some. has been preponderance of evidence rule the as adopted of the western states courts as to Four law enforcement officers testified Arredondo, 1974, Ariz. 111 State v. follows: voluntary nature of the statements the Shearer, 1973, 163; People 141, v. 181 P.2d 526 warning giving on two occa- of the Miranda 1249; 237, Stephenson, State 508 v. sions, P.2d though police Colo. those even 169, 940; 1975, v. 535 P.2d State interrogation. 217 Kan. The without uttered 76; LaFreniere, 1973, 21, making memory Mont. P.2d 163 515 had no that she testified any Braun, 1973, 157, opinion P.2d 509 332, 82 Wash.2d at all. of defend- v. statements State Crank, 1943, testifying 742; psychologist, 105 142 to the defendant’s v. Utah State ant’s condition, 178, and can Di- was inconclusive 542. West’s Pacific 170 A.L.R. P.2d information, to be that knew be understood did not even gest, of this the source doing. psychiatrist “beyond The State’s any adopted she was what that had a state disclose 310 may expressly 1957,7 or be stated ascertainable but it bars finding not guilty by * * * ”5
from the record.
reason of mental
illness or deficiency if
alcohol related as
legisla-
intended
practice
procedure
Massachusetts
7-242.1,
ture in enacting
et
§
seq., W.S.
jurisdiction.
long
We hold as
as
1957, Cum.Supp., as well. The instruction
findings can be ascertained from
court’s
given by the trial court was as follows:
record, that
is sufficient. This view has
law provides
“Our
that drunkenness shall
in other
persuasive
courts. Wilson v.
been
an
be
excuse for any crime or
120;
misde-
State, Fla.1974,
119,
304 So.2d
State v.
meanor.
824,
1966, 180 Neb.
Erving,
216,
146 N.W.2d
provision
998,
“This
1320,
87
cert. den. 386 U.S.
S.Ct.
law
18
means that
if
348;
the evidence
Yeager,
1969,
Wade v.
3 Cir.
shows that
L.Ed.2d
570,
voluntarily
974,
cert.
396
415 F.2d
den.
U.S.
intoxicated when she
466,
committed the
The defendant contends that only The use of deadly danger contrary No. 4 weapon the trial court’s Instruction ous in deadly and dangerous man 6-16, the language and intent of § W.S. ner raises a presumption of malice.9 Bal- opinion principals, her statements were made punishment and suffer the same understanding: would person have been inflicted on the or persons committing offense, he, she, if or explains rejected 5. Jackson New York rule they possessed had been of sound reason and to be one where the of voluntariness intention, discretion. Where a crime rests in presented jury, where reasonable men the inebriated condition of the defendant at dispute. even could differ or if the facts are in committing time the proven the offense be time New York could ex- jury, bearing upon ques- clude on the rule of voluntariness is when un- tion intention.” no der circumstances could the confession be Manslaughter is defined as follows: voluntary. deemed unlawfully any “Whoever kills being human I, Wyoming Constitution, 6. Section Article malice, expressed implied, without or either that, person provides compelled “No shall be voluntarily, upon passion, a sudden heat of testify against case, himself in criminal involuntarily, or but in the commission of act, by any culpable some unlawful ne- glect *8 carelessness, or guilty criminal is provides: 7. Section 6-16 manslaughter, imprisoned and shall be any shall be “Drunkenness not an for excuse more, penitentiary twenty years.” not than misdemeanor, crime or unless such drunken- battery dangerous 9. weapon Assault and with a fraud, by ness be occasioned the person contrivance is defined as follows: Section 6-70 B. persons, or force of some other or for purpose causing perpetuation the offense, “Whoever, the of an dangerous while armed with a or person persons in which deadly case the or weapon, including an unloaded fire- causing so malig- said arm, maliciously drunkenness for such perpetrates an assault or an purpose, principal nant shall battery be considered upon any or and being, assault human
3H
basis of' drunkenness. We cannot see that
P.2d 305.
Wyo., 437
linger v.
enlarged upon
the court’s instruction
re-
evidence to
offered no
here
Defendant
legislative
the
changed
intent. Nor is there
justifi-
such as some
presumption
that
but
to relate
any
by
need
the statute'
court
entirely
stabbing, but relied
the
for
cation
instruction
defense of mental
irre-
The de-
irresponsibility.
mental
sponsibility.
Defendant’s
cross-examina-
did
to the instruction
objection10
fendant’s
expert
tion of the State’s
witness and ex-
following
request
the
that
include
not
of her
attempted
amination
own witnesses
statute be incor-
the drunkenness
portion of
alcohol with
to associate
mental
illness and
porated:
deficiency.
very productive,
While not
that
“
* *
*
rests in inten-
a crime
Where
opened the
tactic
door for
to
tion,
of the de-
inebriated condition
the
argue along those
attempt
lines and
to im-
the
committing
time of
the
press
jury.
jury
the
was apparently
jury,
as
proven
be
offense
not convinced.
of intention.”
bearing upon
the
Intoxication of the defendant was
no
on
placed
reliance
Since
trial,
referred
frequently
during
par
to
no inten-
she could entertain
fact
ticularly
respect
with
to defendant’s under
of her intoxica-
of the extent
because
tion
standing
saying
of what she was
in her
objection,
then we
tion,
by the
as reflected
admissions
and their voluntariness.
In
In
as deficient.
the instruction
view
experts,
cannot
cross-examination
the defense
clearly
it
is also
inquired
of defendant
to the effect
the brief
as
of alcohol on a
upon the
mental
defending
person
was
of the
caliber of defendant.11
that she
stated
than one thousand
treme
be fined not more
condition of which
no
shall
dollars
there’s been
($1,000.00),
imprisoned
or be
in
in this case
that such a condition
(14)
penitentiary not more than fourteen
exists.
years,
furthermore,
or both.”
“MR.
And
in-
CANNON:
fails to make a distinction
struction
between
Cannon,
objection
appears
it
Mr.
The
the
this extreme condition of drunkenness and
record, is as follows:
in
stages, further fails to
other less intoxicated
Honor,
objection,
In
Your
to
“The third
to the effect
address itself
of chronic alcohol-
No. 4 offered
struction
this
here.
it
relationship
ism
between that and
case,
repeating
which does not need
mental illness.”
to describe that
It would be sufficient
particular
respect in
Mr.
With
quoted
to
Cannon’s last
related to the effect of
is an instruction
statement,
pertinent
presented by
we make a
obser-
on the defense
drunkenness
e.,
Attorneys
duty,
object
i.
vation.
have
dual
to this instruction on
defendant. We
proper objections
grounds
to
to
that there was no evidence
make
but
submit
implement
proper
of the kind envisioned
of the law as
drunkenness
statute,
51, W.R.C.P.,
6-16. The
of the
W.S.
draftsman
Rule
makes this
their view.
clear
prejudicial
this instruction
following
inclusion of
manner:
“ * * *
misleading
the defendant’s case. Further
any party may file written re-
more,
object
everything
we would also
quests
that the court instruct the
on the
sentence,
**
past
which
the first
the instruction
refers to the word
requests
forth in the
*. No
law as set
party may
‘voluntary intoxication’
assign
giving
as error
or the
‘voluntary
phrase,
intoxication’
and the
not used within our
far
includes much
give an
instruction unless he ob-
failure
goes
And this
* *
statute.
(Emphasis added.)
jects thereto
beyond
the statute describes
what
requests
such
failure make
effect
range
greater
of alcohol-af
State, Wyo.1975,
in Moore
noticed
been
has
behavior than the statute addresses.
fected
State, Wyo.1975,
109, 112,
Sims
P.2d
witness,
Honor,
Also,
the State’s own
Your
re-
no written
We find
P.2d
Allport,
an
has defined
alcohol
Dr. William
by the
amongst
offered
the instructions
quests
being
a mental illness in
related condition
court, incorporat-
by refused
case,
in
and the
is misled
this
this
loosely pro-
supporting
so
ideas
ing
this
and unable-to make
distinction
struction
whether
mental illness
pounded.
it
what is a bona fide
shall consider
interesting sidelights.
presented some
This
reaching
its
verdict
testimony
expert
re-
respect
presented.
Defendant’s
defense
psychiatrist
unknown. The State’s
object
sults
also
to this instruc-
“MR. HART: We
im-
in some instances it could
grounds
thát
that the term ‘drunken-
testified
tion on the
capabilities.
ness,’
prove
is an ex-
term
the connotation
*9
of defendant received so
The intoxication
understandable and clearly demonstrated
much attention that the court was warrant-
damage,
no brain
no unusual retardation
jury
regard.
instructing
learning
ed in
in that
disability.
and no
The defendant
no
had
disturbance in thinking that would
jury
explaining
In the instruction
prevent
knowing
from
right
from
guilty by
reason of men-
defense of not
wrong and conforming her conduct to the
deficiency,
judge
tal
the trial
me-
illness
requirements of the law. She suffered
pertinent
language
ticulously followed
a personality
from
disorder but mental ill-
7-242.4(a)
7-242.5(a)
(b)
and
and
and
§§
or deficiency
ness
does not include such an
statutorily-required
presented the
forms of
abnormality manifested by anti-social con-
jury
for
What de-
verdicts
consideration.
7-242.4(a)(i).
duct. Section
Her amnesia
now claims should have been in the
not set in until
did
sometime after the
argument by
was for
instruction
counsel to
had
crimes
been committed. It is a conver-
jury.
designed
sion reaction
into the mechanism
contends the trial
the mind to
up unpleasant
cover
experi-
should have instructed
and, according
ences
expert
testimo-
guilty by
if the
was found not
ny,
probably
will
disappear when this case
deficiency
reason of mental illness or
finally
hand,
concluded. On the other
be a
the court
there would
determination
expert testimony
defendant’s
was admitted-
custody,
appropriate
care
conjectural
ly
the effect that what-
treatment of the defendant under the law.
suffering
ever she was
from only might
rejected
This court has
use of such an in
affect her mental responsibility.
concerned,
struction. As far as
Affirmed.
subsequent disposition of the defendant is
irrelevant, would have confused them and
ROSE, Justice, specially concurring.
a compromise
been an invitation for
verdict.
I concur in the
only,
result
but would add
State,
584;
supra,
v.
Lonquest
p.
Rich
this:
State,
1234;
supra,
v.
at p.
Duran v.
mond
State,
434,
Wyo.1976, 546 P.2d
As compared
State,
Wyo.,
Richmond v.
554 P.2d
decided
this court October
finally
Defendant
claims that
where the only grounds
appeal
for
there was not substantial
sup
evidence to
alleged
was an
violation of the Federal
verdict. A
port
study
careful
Constitution,
we,
motion,
on our own
ground
discloses no
for
record
such claim.
ground
directed this
be abandoned in favor
conviction,
appeal,
On
from
we must view
ground
of State constitutional
which was
light
most favorable to
not relied
by the defendant —in the
and afford it the benefit of
matter,
instant
the defendant has alleged
every
fairly
favorable inference that
both State and Federal constitutional violations
State,
therefrom.
Hampton
be drawn
1
and again upon our own motion—
504;
—
Wyo.1977,
State,
558 P.2d
Horn
we refuse to decide the Federal issue—al
1141;
Wyo.1976,
554 P.2d
Evanson v.
though properly raised—and confine our
Wyo.1976,
Federal this tactic for all of the disapprove
I by my special concurrence indicated
reasons State, Wyo., 554 P.2d v.
in Richmond
commencing page Justice,
McCLINTOCK, specially concur-
ring. majority opinion in all
I concur in dispose failure to except as to its
respects, made under appellant
of contentions of the United Federal Constitution respect join my I In that
States. special his concurrence. Rose in
Brother Alexander,
Fay and Irene ALEXANDER wife, Appellants
husband below),
(Defendants and Doris M. W. KADOLPH
Darnell wife, Appellees
Kadolph, husband below).
(Plaintiffs Doris M. W. KADOLPH and
Darnell wife, Appellants
Kadolph, husband and below),
(Plaintiffs Alexander,
Fay and Irene ALEXANDER wife, Appellees
husband below).
(Defendants 4690, 4691.
Nos. Wyoming.
Supreme Court
April Scott, Worland, Fay for
Elmer J. Alexan- Irene Alexander. der and Worland, Davis, John W. for Darnell W. Kadolph Kadolph. and Doris M.