State v. Myers

testimony. child trial court to admit the of the deceased Where- able future income assumptions regarding of is admittance “on the based on certain bor- education, college or some derline between that is high and which admissible school * * * thereof, finding probable ruling and that which is not portion a disposa of average disposable court will not be income. That disturbed.” Missman, indicated as sum Howard v. ble income was that probably would have which the deceased paying possessed for necessaries. after grant- judgment The of the trial court testimony appears import The of ing plaintiffs a new trial conditioned that the witness determined a maximum accepting a remittitur is reversed and re- would have had availa which deceased The trial manded. court is instructed to par support ble to the to contribute of to the make its determination as excessive- first that there was ade ents. note We ness of the verdict in with the accordance quate testimony upon which to find set It is standards forth herein. instructed complet probably would deceased judgment to thereafter either enter for the college, high ed in that he was school verdict, or full amount of the issue its hardworking child, diligent intended to a granting order a conditioned on new trial a go savings college accumulating was a reduction the amount the verdict to of

therefor. There was voluminous “just” sum in consideration finds extremely relationship of close of all particular the circumstances of this family. deceased to his case. cross-appellants Defendants assert judgment of the trial court is af- majority prior age income particulars. all other Costs to firmed post-21 the inclusion relevant and that appellants. figures prejudicial inflam- income was assume, matory. as court McQUADE, did the We J.,C. McFADDEN and Bowman, supra, DONALDSON, the more Checketts v. JJ., MAYNARD, Dis- Judge, liberal rule as recoverable elements of trict concur. damage that the applicable Idaho and recovery base parents of allowable pro- child includes the loss a loss comfort,

spective care, protection and as- expectancy during

sistance the common life parents the trial As child. 494 P.2d 574 weight jury, court instructed the Where, jury. such evidence for the was Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, STATE here, very strong relationship family a shown, parents possessed and where the MYERS, Defendant-Appellant. D. Donald potential limited income income No. 10733. directly physical tied to the labor of Supreme Court of Idaho. parents, cannot as we a matter law March improbable state it was that deceased would given have in future financial

support parents. to his witness, respects specula- while some

tive, possi- nonetheless touched an area damages

ble in- and was in such not couched

flammatory outweigh possi- terms as to its evidentiary

ble circum- value. Under such

stances we cannot state as matter law

that it for the was an abuse discretion McDermott, Pocatello, for

McDermott & defendant-appellant. Gen., Park, Atty. R. Anthony Martin W. Gen., Boise, Hugh

Ward, Deputy Atty. Pocatello, for Jr., Atty., Maguire, Pros. C. plaintiff-respondent.

SHEPARD, Justice. Myers Defendant-appellant appeals from following judgment of conviction entered guilty and verdict with lewd lascivious conduct crime of age sixteen. a minor child under judgment affirm conviction. We prosecution need The evidence of say is sufficient to reviewed herein. It completely it was uncontradicted prosecu- the defense. The evidence of the largely tion consisted year prosecuting (the thirteen witness stepdaughter Myers) her broth- old the at- sisters either observed ers who tempted or were in the fami- sexual assault question. ly home at touched tendered the defense the defendant. Defendant-appellant complains defendant-appellant right first his exercise challenge prosecuting wit indicates a satisfaction with the ness, Bitz, adequately finally stepdaughter, constituted. State v. corroborated. The record is clear Idaho eyewitness testimony direct the brother of Defendant-appellant assigns next prosecuting the and the indirect of witness in the error refusal of the trial court to al circumstances, of surrounding evidence the jury low a view of the scene of the crime. by together admissionary statement with an provides pertinent part: in I.C. 19-2124 § defendant, adequate corrobo the furnished “When, court, opinion in the of the it is prosecuting ration of the of the proper jury that the should view the witness. place charged in which the offense is committed, any in been or previously held that This court has occurred, may other material fact or- prosecuting in corroboration of the witness jury body der the in to be a conducted by type may a case this direct evi of * * *” surrounding dence or of cir bar, where, Kleier, at cumstances as in the case State 69 Idaho reputation truth prosecutrix the for (1949), of P.2d the court stated: chastity unimpeached and her testi physical “The record condition shows mony contradictory nor inconsistent changed. crime the scene of the had nor in with the admitted facts of circumstances, the did Under these court Ross, herently improbable. State v. by denying not abuse its discretion ; (1968) Idaho 449 P.2d 369 application.” Tope, (1963). In the instant case the record demon- ample testimony indicating strates that the Defendant-appellant next asserts physical of the condition of the scene impartial that he did not a fair or receive changed crime in the interim be- had been trial, trying citing jurors that two of the trial, jury tween criminal act and among those the instant case had been so no of that scene valid observation panel upon the prior called a in a trial for in its changed have assisted could complaint. prior trial ended in same That circumstances determinations. Under that, appellant argues even a mistrial. The discretionary authority it is clear that the question though jurors in were ex two errone- not exercised the trial court was trial, they cused the first were never for a ously denying motion in defendant’s “exposed theless to the facts of the case.” jury view. demonstrated, however, that no The record principal Defendant-appellant’s last and challenge for the was made trial counsel assignment that the seating of error asserts jurors of the two defendant ignored the trial court the instructions of question. The record further indicates insanity. Appel- drawn, relating jurors only four were to the defense of that of the Appellant lant that the defense “evidence” excused their dire. asserts voir challenge question was ample opportunity of the defendant had two way prosecution jurors question if them be in no he believed contravened oppor required finding of or and therefore prejudiced fact biased. Such the de- tunity guilty. challenge not exercised and on behalf two witnesses. complain largely heard to fense consisted defendant will not be way for Appellant dem those had worked this has no One of witnesses level. years psychology some jurors onstrated in the field of that two field of “exposed considered himself an in the were in fact facts of he they any way psychological testing. re He indicated case” nor that had battery psychological improper knowledge purport of the had administered ceived aft- failure of the a number of months ed facts of the tests case. That had rather alleged offense. witness er date obviously changed as to wheth- these tests asked “from witness held re- September er not the defendant should be Myers in gave you Mr. certainty, sponsible can trial the witness for his acts. At medical reasonable with a diagnosis the defendant as of mind of stated his you tell us what changed date in terms the then being insane defendant was [the June sanity of a determining The witness alleged ?” standard offense] Thus, “No, re- court in State can’t do that.” defendant as defined I answered lack there- 456 P.2d 797 gardless qualifications or regard- witness, and possessed by psychiatric tendered so-called less of his testimony of quoted The above cited evaluation, testimony was value- his entire evidently was the for the defense witnesses relate, re- nor could it less since it did disregarded by in ar- completely jury the late, the the state of mind of defendant appellant riving The con- at its verdict. the at the time of offense. rea- established a tends “that the evidence sanity at the time testify on behalf sonable doubt as to his second witness physician employed alleged commission of the acts with of the of defendant awas charged.” fur- hospital. sole cre- which Defendant a state These were the he de- the that witness ther asserts that the evidence of advanced on behalf of dentials competent the and unre- fense witnesses was qualify as the evidence and that not shown to futed psychiatry. field of He was State’s disregard that any experience liberty not at possess or to educated Nevertheless, that he and in fact the verdict psychiatry. the field of by the evidence psychiatric supported is not stated that he had arrived at a sanity of suggested doubt of the diagnosis since a reasonable defendant not con- suffering from had been raised and defendant was the defendant maladjustment, habitual ex- “marital troverted. [and] “the drinking” which he defined as cessive state, sanity In this once the of the patient for the could have been intoxicated issue,” “put defendant has been past twelve more than twelve months sanity prove beyond must a reasonable suggested that the defend- times.” He also White, supra. ju doubt. Other State suffering “depressive neuro- ant was risdictions hold: brought sis” ex- which was “habitual insanity showing (i) That drinking.” cessive defense, form affirmative and must be At the time cross-examination that preponder- shown defendant a acknowledged during witness evidence; ance of the observation, pur- the defendant was under prove his the defendant must (ii) That order, Hospital suant to court at State [see, insanity beyond doubt e. a reasonable South, the witness had recommended that 790, g.: Oregon, Leland U.S. S. be returned to court to face the defendant ap 1002, (1952)]. Ct. 96 L.Ed. being charges against than him rather proach jurisdiction chosen in this hospital treatment. retained at for defendant, of the protective most by the The recommendation witness rigorous proof. him terms least language of trial court was couched in the generally: See 17 A.L.R.3d of Idaho the then standard of State “rea- Among jurisdictions holding a to the sanity determining the of a defendant state, trial, there is sonable doubt” burden on the criminal to-wit: split right quantum of evi- further the difference between knew sig- necessary dence to rebut the wrong appreciate and was able competent sanity “put question in issue” the nificance his acts and was sanity proof is on the- At so that the burden of mentally to his counsel at trial. assist creating A number of federal courts and a state. dence reasonable doubt as to very minority held small of the states have of the accused.” Iverson, to rebut that “some” evidence is sufficient presumption. those courts use (1955). Some “any” (But “slight” the terms evidence. “And, further, a defendant’s defense of States, F.2d see: Hartford v. United insanity in a criminal case is ineffectual (9th den. 385 1966), Cir. cert. U.S. by evidence, until backed not until (1966), 87 S.Ct. 17 L.Ed.2d 110 proof, he submitted has suffi- substantial wherein “substantial” was re doubt, cient to raise a reasonable is there quired). However, these application any upon burden re- state in that uni terms has been neither clear-cut nor gard.” Gould, State v. form, and liberal has not been as towards reading of the as a first “The defendant on motion his own might suggest: terms themselves brings insanity into the is, being it subject “The matter what devolves him to create be, course, sharp quanti- no there can a reasonable doubt in the minds qualitative of some tative or definition jurors responsibility as to his the time ‘Certainly it more than evidence. means this, of homicide. do If he fails to course, scintilla, the amount yet, may legal prosecution rest on as- require, need not so as to substantial sumption that all men and re- are sane uncontroverted, if verdict of a directed If, sponsible for other their acts. on the ” States, acquittal.’ Hawkins United hand, he a rea- creating does succeed 849, 44, U.S.App.D.C. 114 F.2d jurors doubt in sonable the minds of the (1962). sanity as to his at the time of the com- homicide, to mission he is entitled Many held that courts have such the benefit of doubt at hands sanity presumption rebutted until is not responsibility jurors, and the the defendant’s has raised a rea overcoming such doubt shifts to sanity. doubt of his A.L. sonable See: 17 prosecution.” Tharp, State v. 48 Idaho re jurisdictions R.3d 146. These therefore 641, 201, 636, (1930); 284 P. 202-203 proof quire that the defendant show suffi Shuff, 115, P. 664 Idaho initially to re cient raise that doubt before (1903). quiring the further bring state to forth evi Following supra, State v. dispel dence to The law of that doubt. 31, Chapter legislature enacted Ses- Idaho regarding on the defend the burden 1970, on Feb- sion Laws which took effect sanity presumption to has ant rebut the ruary 19, 1970, as I.C. and is encoded now unchanging been and well-stated. seq. provides: et 18-207 I.C. 18-209 §§ § insanity plea “A is inef- defendant’s excluding “(1) Mental disease or defect evidence; and, fectual until backed responsibility defense. is an affirmative not until he has submitted substantial ”** proof, upon any is there burden 18-207 states: I.C. regard § State v. Clok- whatever.” ey, 364 P.2d responsible for person is not “(1) A conduct if at criminal or as a result of mental conduct disease “[Approving an that read as instruction ei- he lacks substantial defect presumption sanity pre- This follows] wrongfulness appreciate ther to vails until doubt is a reasonable cast to conform his conduct his conduct upon it. requirements of law. merely prosecution relieves the from in- troducing proof act, the defendant was used in this terms ‘men- “(2) As sane, until raised evi- include an issue tal or defect’ do not disease abnormality only by repeated manifested character while that on the other is ex- clusively lay con- criminal or otherwise anti-social from the mouths of wit- lay duct.” nesses and from facts not of it- must destroy self jury’s serve to tradition- I.C. 18-208 states: § al function.” “(1) Evidence that the defendant suf- Bishop, In State v. 260 A.2d fered a mental disease or defect is (Vermont 1969) : it is relevant admissible whenever “ * * * prove that the defendant did or did is for the determine experts have a state of mind is an element from the whether such ” * * * of the offense. opin- sufficient skill render their any importance.” ion of these, remaining nor the Neither sections any language Schantz, act which in- contain State v. 98 Ariz. any legislature intent (1965): dicates change quoted. the case law above “* * * compelled was not insanity is legislature statement of the accept the uncontradicted testi- indicates that affirmative defense * * mony expert of an raising proving that burden of defense Cano, In State v. 103 Ariz. Indeed, upon it is is still the defendant. (1968): stringent perhaps more in its burden “Expert-opinion testimony merely evi- defendant-appellant. jury, dence to be considered to- next turn to the status of We gether with all the facts and circum- opinion in the law of Idaho. stances of the case [Citation omitted]. “Expert opinions ordinarily con- are not Such is no than a more advisory generally but are in clusive opinion, learned man’s and as such it can character to assist the triers fact to higher validity rise no than the apply understand and other evidence.” reasons and facts on is based. Application Big Irrigation Lost River * * * jury ‘The should be free to District, 788, Idaho P.2d 307 independent analysis make an the (1957). rests, expert’s opinion facts which the on and and thus exercise their historic function sufficiently quali- “Whether a witness is passing credibility on the of the wit- expert ” opinion fied as an to state is a (Quoting part ness.’ in from Bowker largely is the matter which within dis- State, v. (Alaska 1962)). 373 P.2d 500 cretion of the trial court. After this de- 596, State, in And Tarter opinion termination is made and the evi- (Okl.Cr.1961) : admitted, weight dence is the the evi- jury.” dence is a matter for Bean v. the support- jury] “Their verdict is not [the Company, Diamond Alkali proof, only by ed the medical but Legg Bar- (1969); lay question of a witnesses the few on inaga, (1968). 440 P.2d 345 insanity shooting. the time of the previously noted, As there consider- Nevertheless, prov- it was within their justification jury able for the to hold the testimony lay ince to the believe the “expert” opinion in this to be little case disregard witnesses to the of the medical Dusky no value. As was stated testimony, they if chose to do so. The States, United (8th 295 F.2d Cir. weighing law makes no distinction in 1961): expert evidence between essentially character, is nothing “There sacred or evidence of other and it is for testimony. expert jury untouchable in the reviewing the court mere primary fact that the determine weight given the such to be may typified expert one side be evidence.” jury have, the Since in this case could striking decisions the more One of did, obviously reject opinion psychiatric testi- of nonconclusiveness

area mony “experts”, Wolff, of the defendant’s People v. remaining question is whether there Therein P.2d 959 Cal.2d competent jury evidence on which of a was upheld a murder conviction the Court killing could based their determination of boy charged year with fifteen old sanity. replete testimony of The record is with testimo- in the face of his mother conduct, ny regarding the actions and reac- psychiatrists, admittedly qualified well four prior to, tions of the imme- testified that all of whom following, diately schizophrenia and was commission of suffering from act, apprehen- charged at the time of his stated therein legally The court insane. sion, during upheld on his confinement. The de- verdict could be jury’s long periods fendant had been observed for and declarations the conduct the basis of time, he had been resolving the since well known to and that of the defendant police years. lay a number of admittedly testi- for On between such conflict offense, morning following psychiatric he was mony as contrasted with police drinking in a tav- fact found beer testimony “is a mood, jovial apparently nor- Cal- ern in Albeit that jury’s determination.” respect. every mal ob- in almost He was legal is different test of ifornia’s immediately following per- highly served commis- Idaho’s, that decision -than step-children sion of the offense herein. suasive home, family and his actions and atti- psychiatry Wolff, if pointed As out testimony. tude were described their uni regard to science with -were an exact conclu theories, diagnoses and formity of Finally, we note there practitioners, could among sions its jury court’s 27 stat instruction No. making such a rationale for more of ed: binding upon jury. opinion testimony may “Duly qualified experts give their be the case appear does Such opinions questions and controversy indicates in the field of the literature much deciding the trial. assist the To deep-seated between the various conflict may questions consider Oregon, su Leland v. practitioners. See: therefor, opinion stated with reasons Hopes Psychiatry: pra; “The Promise of gives opin- any, by if who Disillusionments,” University 57 N. W. and accept ion. is not bound to 19; Post “Expertise and Law Review conclusive, any expert as but Insanity Antag or the Judgment Hoc give weight to it the to which should and the Law” 57 N. W. Universi nostician they fury find it be entitled. The to Ad 4; Menninger, ty Carl Law Review opin- may, disregard any such however Confer Tenth Circuit dress to the Judicial ion, them to be if it shall be found to 481; “Psy reported in ence as 32 F.R.D. supplied) (Emphasis unreasonable.” chiatry Responsibility,” 65 and Criminal objection instruction was No 761; “Psychiatry, Eth Yale Law Journal trial, made the time of the nor does the at Law,” ics, Columbia and the Criminal assign appellant herein instruction 183; M’Naghten to “From Review Law indicated, instruction error. As this above Beyond,” Review and 50 Cal.Law Currens was, is, compliance in the law of with 189; Etiology Epidemiology of “The jurisdiction. this Pub Schizophrenia,” American Journal judgment affirmed. of conviction is 1071; lic Health “Sense Nonsense Eysenck “A Psychology,” (1951); H. J. DONALDSON, Psychiatric

Critique Approach McQUADE, J., C. Correction,” J., SPEAR, pri- concur; J., -Crime and 23 Law Con sat but retired -temporary opinion. 650. or to Problems ” McFADDEN, charged.’ (Quoted (dissenting). of the crime from Justice White, 155, supra, State v. 93 Idaho at White, Court State v. 93 Idaho This 799.) 456 P.2d P.2d 797 in a unanimous (1969), adopted opinion, as a standard criminal “No. [15] responsibility the rule set forth “ interposed ‘The has insani Penal the American Law Institute’s Model ty presumes that as a defense. The law approved that case this Code. Court a defendant sane. This given by the four of the instructions trial evidence has is rebuttable. Where been set out the court which standards of that a introduced defendant suffered code. At the time the second Institute’s or defect at the time mental disease this which commenced charged, of the crime commission May legislature enacted had prove beyond a State must reasonable S.L.1970, provided Ch. which doubt did not have (1) person 1. A not re- “Section that, despite mental or defect disease or sponsible for criminal conduct if at defect, some mental disease had [he] such conduct as of men- time of a result capacity appreciate both substantial tal disease or defect he lacks substantial wrongfulness conduct and [his] capacity appreciate wrong- either to require conduct conform [his] fulness of his conduct or to conform ” (Quoted ments the law.’ requirements conduct to of law. White, supra, P. act, As (2) used the terms 2d 799.) ‘mental disease or include defect’ do not peated criminal or otherwise anti-social conduct. ^[*] abnormality if ^[*] ” manifested only by re- means a mental causes “ ‘Insanity as used in these instructions lack of substantial “No. [16] disease or defect which either appreciate wrongfulness one’s particular This act emergency contained an conduct or to conform one’s conduct clause became ap- its effective ” requirements (Quoted proval law.’ February 19, White, supra, at from State v. In the instant case the in- trial court 799.) structed the in conformity with the presented The defendant two witnesses set standards out supra, State v. capacity. who as to his mental S.L.1970, testified Ch. as follows : witnesses, psycholo-- One of these a clinical proving beyond a minds a charged the burden sane and [he] “ ‘The law defense of place upon was insane at reasonable was responsible the defendant has committed, presumes “No. insanity. [him] [him] reasonable doubt as ^[14] for their acts. the time the act to raise but The law all only places burden doubt that interposed men are in your does In June health crime. disease. ic disorder gist enough 1969,Myers The other mental who 24, 1969, center, for him diagnosis However; practiced in a local was witness, testified that the date of the to have suffering from a he classified as a mental was not this witness Dr. of the defendant on Liong, comprehensive opinion September, community was psychot- testified alleged quali- of the defendant at the time of the com- medical He tes- fied as an witness. mission alleged act graduated in the infor- medical tified from that he you If doubt, mation. employed then at the State Hos- school and was this reasonable pital South, having doubt must be in there for about resolved worked you favor fact, acquit pointed year. must it must be [his] out [him] challenge Liong’s A. the state made to Dr. Yes. no qualifications. general He to his testified Now, your professional Q. opinion, hospital: duties Myers Sep- you Mr. when examined tember,

“My suffering from was he general admitting pa- duties include doctors, disease or defect or disorder? private tients referrals mental from psychiatrists, court also referrals Yes. A. judges from the court or from all over Q. was this ?” What Idaho, examine, diagnose pa- and also on remoteness was objection based An psychiatric tients before consultants question which was interposed to this last patients necessary treat these whenever discussion After further sustained. physically psychiatrically, also was asked: witness regarding confer with other doctors he was or not answer whether “Your treatments, diagnosis. examinations and or defect suffering from a metal disease * % *_» this correct? yes, is of 1969 is June Liong Dr. testified that he had examined Yes. A. Myers September Myers had previously been admitted the State *(cid:127)***(cid:127)* ^[*] n Hospital November, Q. and also in reached this conclusion you So sources, then, February, He 1969. stated: is this correct ? many “Q. Now, Yes, in February Mr. of 1969 was that’s correct. A. Myers hospital ? admitted Mr. Q. Now, what was of 1969 June defect, Yes, your

A. he was Myers’ admitted 24th mental disease February, opinion ? Q. you Do know when he was released concurred four A. was on this visit ? team—- our ward members

A. He released 4th of was object Kisling: I to that inas- will Mr. involuntarily was March but treated isn’t team here. much as the ward subsequent to that. may He answer. The Court: Q. you diagno- Do know what [sic] sis on this visit was ? diagnosis consists The Witness: paranoid diagnosis neurosis, A. chronic This things: depressive mari- three schizophrenia together with excessive maladjustment, habitual excessive tal drinking.” habitual drinking, alcoholism. A an- motion made to strike last Q. Now, depressive neurosis what doctor, swer the trial de- but court you classify as a mental disease would

nied the on the basis that the testi- motion defect? mony came from official records of the de- classify it of the mental A. I as one hospital. fects. During further examination Dr. Liong, he testified: “Q. Now, Doctor, when you treated Q. ^[*] Now, ^[*] Doctor, on the ¡4? ^[*] depressive neu- ^{[*] [*]} al- maladjustment and rosis and marital Myers September, Mr. on the 30th of blackouts, things of this nature coholic you opportunity prior did have to, you this cause that testified could treating through his go to him to records one capacity or cause lack of substantial hospital at ? the capacity to to a lack of substantial

A. Yes. requirements conform his to the conduct Q. you general procedure this Is before of the law ? patient, examine a become familiar to Yes, background I that with his ? A. think he would have May mary Q. prosecutor] phrase I enter an contains [by one to the relevant say you you Did think not rational objection? processes Myers at of the time certainly incident, e., you Myers the i. right do know ? that knew from wrong alleged the time of the I patient In this for certain A. know However, crime. this would conclusion that he is. testimony not overcome the doctor’s for Q. You know counsel] [defense the that reason the test for criminal re- what, certain ? Doctor sponsibility of State stat- and the White capacity he A. That has lack of sub- two-part unequiv- ute Liong is a test. Dr. enough recognize require- stantial to his ocally Myers stated was to con- unable require- ments or to conform with the form requirements his conduct ments of the law. report law. The written does not comment Q. this of 1969? Would June test, only on aspect this but relates A. Yes.” prior to M’Naghten the test de- and to the capacity fendant’s to aid in stand any The state did offer not direct evi- his own defense. contrary dence to the statement Dr. Liong. Instead, the state on its relied my It is had conclusion that exhibit A Liong’s cross-examination to weaken Dr. probative no to value as the issue of opinion.1 In the Dr. cross-examination of whether the defendant had the overcome Liong, presented the state in evidence ex- presumption sanity. As stated in In- A, copy hibit three-page of an official place struction “The law does not No. Hospital South Evaluation and Dis- upon him the burden defendant] [the charge Summary Myers, concerning Mr. proving beyond a he reasonable doubt that dated signed October Dr. was charged insane at the time act Liong. committed, only places but burden him your

That raise in minds a following document contained reasonable doubt sanity paragraph which of the defendant at at trial claimed time al- be inconsistent commission the act Liong’s with Dr. testimo- leged ny. in the information.” Under state of the record at that time the sole issue “RECOMMENDATIONS: Since was as to whether or patient right wrong, knows knows had submitted over- evidence sufficient to the nature of charges his can aid presumption sanity. come the defense, opin- counsel his and it our competent evidence then before the ion he things these knew Liong’s testimony was Dr. effect crime, alleged and since he left that the defendant sufficient lacked mental hospital absence, on unauthorized re- to conform his conduct to the thereby indicating that he moti- quirements White, su- (State of law. treatment, vated for it is recommended pra.) that he be returned to the court to face charges against him than rather Court Under the law as set forth hospital.” my in State conclusion record, As however, I read the the oral defendant overcame the statements of Liong by the Dr. were unrefuted never con- Liong, tradicted Dr. excerpt the state. The the state then failed above “prove Discharge beyond from the doubt Evaluation and a reasonable Sum- peared good 1. de- The state’s case in chief and was not in a mood focused factually pressed. ac- what observation cannot be occurred This light weight June of the fact There is the record corded much police in a bar and had who defendant was arrested detective Myers drinking day following arrested Mr. before the arrest. been for a time ap- incident to the effect defendant 580 offering the defendant succeeds in or Once a mental disease

defendant did that, definite evidence as to his lack despite disease of mental defect some mental or capacity, "shifting and thus in effect defect, had substantial [he] burden,” required go he is further.2 wrongfulness appreciate both to state, view, my position errs in The its con- and to conform conduct [his] [his] privileged that the to disbelieve the requirements duct the law.” expert testimony dispelled unrefuted 93 State Idaho v. Instr. No. sanity. presumption of the defendant’s 799. Defendant’s bears witness’ White, supra, the effect Under v. State sanity presumption reason —the a defend- able doubt. Once done posi- law when disappears ant as a rule of must come with additional evi forward in- the defendant’s tive evidence establishes bearing not, on the issue. If dence sanity. Wigmore on Evidence IX § reality a and the “burden” is in fiction ; (3d 1940) I Crim.Evid. ed. Wharton’s § jury heard as here would have no evidence bur- 1955). defendant’s (12th ed. supporting A point its verdict. criminal insanity rule is credi- den under Idaho’s requires in such a conviction circumstance ca- bly lack mental the issue of his raise P. Dennis, re 51 Cal.2d more. aAs pacity accomplished here. which he Hari, A. ; People 1959) 2d (Cal. credibly is- logic, raising the if matter of (App.Div. D.2d 294 N.Y.S.2d 759 sanity to presumption of sue causes States, supra. Phillips v. 1968), United must, ef- disappear then my that there is merit conclusion It is fect, doubt raised a reasonable have also position that the whol- the defendant’s theory is capacity. legal mental instructions ly court’s disregarded the States, Phillips v. United this effect. this judgment and that 1962). (10th F.2d 204 Cir. reversed. case should be long Staff, It been the law Idaho that Idaho lias doubt. State Wetter, ; (1903) issue in- raises this once a defendant sanity P. 664 prosecution prove must then P. 341 beyond a reasonable sane

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Myers

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: Mar 10, 1972

Citation: 494 P.2d 574

Docket Number: 10733

Court Abbreviation: Idaho