*1 PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, JERSEY, THE v. STATE OF NEW SIKORA, J. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. WALTER May Argued 6, 1964 1965. October 5 Decided *3 Mr. Bruno L. Leopizzi for argued cause appellant. Mr. Archibald Kreiger, Assistant Prosecutor, argued cause for respondent John Thevos, Passaic (Mr. County G. Prosecutor, attorney).
The opinion the court was delivered by J. Defendant Walter J. Sikora shot and killed Francis, Douglas Hooey the early morning 15, January 1962. Thereafter, on 15, a May jury found him guilty murder in the first for the killing, recommended life imprisonment. Following imposition of sentence, he appealed directly to this Court. R. R. 1:2—1(c).
On this appeal defendant contends the trial court com- mitted reversible error in two motions denying for mistrial, and in to admit certain refusing psychiatric rela- tive to defendant’s capacity premeditate the he killing committed. There is no substance to the of error charge to the motions for respect mistrial. The grant or denial court’s discretion. thereof was a matter for the trial conclusion appellate record no sound reason for presents refusal The attack on the the action it took was arbitrary. re- evidence, however, permit psychiatric introduction of detailed consideration. quires feet, five was 36 years age, At the time of trial Sikora an un- had had He six inches 116 pounds. tall weighed was of living recollection fortunate childhood. His earliest six five or when about in a Home in County Catholic Bergen as the other chil- there, old. He never had visitors years any seven At did, age dren and he lonesome and unhappy. a foster home in him in the Child Welfare Board placed was beaten There he claims he North New vale, Jersey. and was he refused to stay ran back away. brought On being there he After a few months transferred to orphanage. re- Home where he was sent the Hackensack Children’s was in few be years tbe next year. mained for about Over and received unhappy beatings homes. He was three foster in his room In third home he was locked bedwetting. When picked which he ran away again. for two weeks after was sent to the Hackensack Child Welfare up by police he was old. While there he said He was then 15 years Home. a time. At 16 for a week at to an isolation room confined allowed to work in but bakery, was transferred and years ran Then be was bard he away again. was made to work so Home where he Boys got along to Jamesburg committed Thereafter year. well and remained for about fairly farm in the area. He *4 dairy him to work on authorities put to 7:00 or of work were from 4:00 the hours claimed a.m. week and room and he was paid per $1 for which 7:30 p.m., was Permission to weekly. given he received $2 Later board. Merchant Marine when he was join farm leave the 19 old. years about Merchant he left the Marine and one-half years three
After Paterson, remained, New where Jersey live in to and came until this crime was committed. The service, Army except until and he was service Eebru- him in 1955 drafted Army “under at his own request 1957. He was ary discharged who of the psychiatrists He told some honorable conditions.” and overstaying intoxication testified at this trial -in He was unhappy in his discharge. leave played part had drafted and when because he was 30 Army years age boys. and 19-year-old serve and work with 18- While 1957. February Paterson in Sikora returned to laborer, carpentry doing there he as a worked general in refrigera- when he became employed until 1959 painting in the While engaged tion and air installation. conditioning shop. over his employer’s he had work, latter living quarters the shooting. until This remained his official residence women and the companionship has never married Sikora alone and was spent of his free time Most infrequent. quanti- he consumed where, large apparently, taverns nearby a woman a tavern he met 1959 while in ties of beer. In May months he. About three older than about 15 years who was her man lived with he moved into her later, apartment well very 29, They got along December 1961. and wife until a fixed had saved when marry they a time after agreed intoxicated, he was while of money. Subsequently amount friction between This caused stolen. savings “rolled” and 28, December drink On heavily. them both began of which in the course had an they argument down.” had him She “upside her apartment turned literally leave fined and ordered to and he was the next day arrested to the so, belongings quarters He did returning her home. was receiving unemployment shop. (He his employer’s over laid off Decem- time, been during at the having compensation ber.) her but she refused telephoned daily the separation
After According This him upset greatly. him. speak trial, his relationship at the psychiatric defense one, she the domi- being a markedly dependent with her He continued to frequent party. and aggressive nant establishment where he had Tavern, a neighborhood D & D to his January 12, Friday, according On met her. first *5 testimony, suicide at attempted home by taking large quantity of pills. was unsuccessful and he awoke attempt about noon, Sunday sick but not affected January seriously by experience.
In the early afternoon of that he wrote his erstwhile day friend and girl letter it in her placed mailbox. He made no effort to into her go apartment. thereafter he made Shortly a telephone call to her voice, which was answered a male by and he then went to the D D & Tavern. This was about p.m. 4:30 While beer he drinking noticed Douglas Hooey there. He had known as a Hooey casually frequenter tavern for about two years. he had had a Apparently flare-up with his female friend a short time over previous Hooey.
Sikora visited with a male friend in the tavern until about p.m. 9 :30 when the friend left. Thereafter Sikora sat alone at bar, and on several occasions would brush Hooey him an elbow poking into his back. Then would stand Hooey but nearby Sikora had no grin, words with him. On one occasion he overheard make Hooey remark disparaging about'the of Sikora’s availability friend now that girl they had broken Between up. 11:00 and 12:00 after he had p.m., consumed 25 to 30 beer, glasses he testified he was sud- denly attacked by Hooey two or three friends, of his beaten and badly kicked, and then thrown out of the tavern onto the sidewalk. When he arose he was cut and bleeding face, about the head and hands. State contended his (The hands were cut when he broke the glass panel the door in to re-enter the attempting tavern.) He walked home, entered his employer’s shop, called the the incident. In a police reported few minutes the police car and he described what appeared occurred, had asking him back to the they accompany tavern. They declined unless he would ride police headquarters sign complaint. him On his refusal and declination of their offer to take the officers hospital, departed. went to his upstairs apartment lay the bed had happened what to him and thinking his difficulty with *6 testimony) his his female friend. While there (according cry- he himself. said he was conceived the idea of He killing an auto- and mixed and from its ing, up, place he took hiding Marine he his Merchant during matic which had pistol bought in the with shells service. The was loaded gun fully eight and sat one in the He took the off clip safety chamber. on his mind about bed, but second thought changed the talk to and decided to to the tavern first to return suicide, had fired in the about the never been Hooey fight. gun the He across he owned it. left his and went years building Then he a shed and it until it was empty. street to test-fired stairs, to his walked the apartment, part way up went back nine He took the and reloaded the bullets. stopped gun he had a over 50 of them which bullets from box containing his at he in his the time the put pocket picked up gun the to his while According testimony, reloading bedroom. in the of the men who had assaulted him he gun thought he his head” started for the “just Then lost tavern. attack. and find out the reason for the Hooey tavern to talk that homicide In connection it be noted after the may arrest, officers found in his police apartment and Sikora’s written, he “The on which had piece paper bloodstained is Miller.” first is for and the second for Stella Doug bullet confession, there was in his some Although equivocation which was and in his admittedly voluntarily given, written, note the very to when the was evidence suggests was he himself and left that it written before armed strongly his to return to the tavern in search of Hooey. apartment he in his waist belt apartment, put gun leaving
On far up jacket enough hide it. zippered Thinking in the tavern, be number of he decided persons there would endeavor entrance, and out alleyway Hooey to get use as to talk to him about assault. As he neared door so he out, saw the decided not to lights go go tavern which, in. was about 3:00 a.m. time. apparently, closing It he heard woman as he door remark passed pro- But one who was the had been beaten up fane language earlier. back Looking he saw out the tavern Hooey coming door. Hooey asked, “What hell here?” are you doing Sikora testified he replied he wanted to find out he had why been beaten up. Both and the woman started to walk Hooey him, toward he drew whereupon and told not gun Hooey to come closer. Hooey kept to back coming began up, repeating S'ikora warning. said Hooey grinning, and asked if Sikora “the will thought shoot.” Sikora thing replied Hooey “liable to find out” if he did not stop forward. coming Sikora knew the catch on the safety gun was off. There is an street short distance from intersecting the tavern and Sikora was toward it. He backing off stepped *7 the curb into the street with Hooey him. At this approaching time he fired and four shots entered head Hooey’s and body him. Then he ran killing across the street, looked back and fired the in air, gun did, as he “All shouting bastards you back.” stay
Erom the scene of the he went to his killing girlfriend’s house and the bell. There was rang answer, no so he kicked in the door. Hot her at home finding he left and returned to his own apartment. Before however, he departing, attempted to retrieve from her mailbox the letter he had there deposited the previous afternoon. After it out of the getting part way box, he decided it and against taking pushed it back. Later the police found marks on bloody finger it. At his apartment on the lay bed expecting police arrive in a short time. He reloaded the with gun (he said) intention of himself. shooting About ten minutes later when the police appeared, the intention had not been executed.
The above factual outline represents the substance of Sikora’s and his confession. voluntary The con- fession, which fills 51 of the trial pages transcript, signed in the afternoon of the early day It reveals shooting. a comprehensive recollection of the circumstances before and at the time of the fatal event. psychiatrists who testified for the State and defense received much very the same history from Sikora at the time of their examinations. The State be- contended demonstrated that the facts in their totality had committed reasonable that defendant yond doubt and was therefore premeditated, deliberate and willful killing of murder in the first guilty degree.
No defense All the psychiatrists of insanity interposed. the time of the Sikora was sane before and at agreed legally difference Thus was that he knew the it conceded shooting. nature and between he knew the quality right wrong; act, and he that was to kill. knew wrong The error in reversal of asserted this Court as requiring the conviction had its in one hypothetical question put origin Galen, a pro- defense counsel to Dr. Noel psychiatrist C. duced on behalf of the defendant. He
Dr. Galen specializes psychiatry psychoanalysis. received his M.D. in 1949. In addition to postgrad- uate work in he had three psychiatry, years neurology said, as a This dealt last training psychoanalyst. training, on a detailed and psychodynamics very sophisticated level. him own It are their taught people product life their all own and that history, genetic patterns, they react under the stresses of their lives. As differently daily of his result he believes that mental study experience, disorder, from objective disturbance distinguished disease, are from merely people gradients, range being the world normal, its essentially perceiving substantially *8 all normal to marked distortion of the appearance, way mechanism, and the two between extremes is a thinking line which is to and to varia- prone open rather jagged many short, In all human behavior is tions. distributed an of fine there no all gradations, infinite or spectrum being in human It is his view that mental dynamics. none disorder of an indeterminate line between is one dis- degree gross and normal and it is functioning, often impossi- organization line a particular at what say point ble to person a time. Mental illness at or given disorder in functioning it; a term as he sees it is a this context is relative disorgan- a which causes person ization of the to personality react in a kind in a a to of stress character- specific way specific way istic for him. what makes a is the man
Psychodynamics study “tick.” an In effect the doctor said its is to seek purpose explanation a time in terms individual’s mental condition at given relate his his emotional lifelong development; ques- tioned conduct and its emotional symptoms accompanying antecedent, their In appearing factors. long predetermining as a witness, help Dr. his function was to Galen indicated court to this understand “the of what dynamics happened man with this time particular at this history particular his life.” consider It was not a place psychiatrist his or in terms of premeditation right of murder aspect In his or evil. Evil wrong good concept. is philosophical view the cannot consider psychodynamic psychiatrist con- aspect first murder which in law requires of a or evil evil, to kill in terms of intent. ceiving design These moral decide. are best left to the courts to judgments Such deals with the scientific physician problem way his his by applying knowledge “way people operate,” react stress and “the knowledge way people particular kinds of stress, based on their personality disorganization.” He feels “somewhat medieval in about evil.” Basic- talking man is a ally Dr. thesis is that victim of helpless Galen’s environment; and his that unconscious forces genes lifelong from within dictate the individual’s behavior without his be- able to alter it. ing area of
By way under illustrating psychodynamics discussion, who, Dr. referred to friend physician Galen while on a was cut off public another driving highway, motorist. professional clearly, general “[T]his man who is a man knows in a way, right wrong, good evil, get if from from want we into that controversy, man chased the car who him old but cut off and finally Now, particular time, off him cut the car that cut off. at this behaving way, really endangering in this which was when endangering although
life, people, the lives other sane at *9 time, acting he was in an manner with a disturbance irrational consciousness; very thing his define is a difficult consciousness dynamic.” and understand unless sees as a one under impression this illustration is that conveyed by Dr. Galen’s view of the between dynamic relationship conscious and unconscious; if his friend had killed some- one with his ear while the motorist who had offended pursuing him, he should not be held criminal because responsibility set out the chase as the result of unconscious rather than conscious motivation. The idea seems to be that every no deed, executed, matter how is never re- quickly fully sult of the apparent cause, immediate and must be judged an in- according probable unconscious motivations of dividual Therefore, with the actor’s if in the history. lifelong opinion psycho oriented dynamically psychiatrist, deed, when evaluated of the individual’s against background life rather history, probably produced unconscious by motivations, than conscious no mens rea, there was no crimi- intent, nal and therefore no criminal In view his guilt. conduct must be considered been conditioned having internal and external forces beyond the actor’s control. quite
As above, we have indicated when Dr. Galen made his examination about four months after the homicide for about one and three-quarter hours, obtained substantially detailed above. had a clear history recollection of his life and of the events of the fatal previous he was night, the doctor a able to account of give step-by-step the circum- stances On the basis of the shooting. it was history, his that at the time of the crime opinion all (and perhaps adult Sikora was from a life) suffering personality disorder type, of a passive-dependent aggressive features. This is a function of his kind of disorder personality “which is his with himself and with life and with way dealing people He found and with stress.” no evidence of any overt halluci- nations, reference; delusions or ideas of nor any evidence of mental disease. The accused’s organic insight judgment education, consonant with emotional were status and *10 464
intellect; he was “estimated” to a dull- have normal normal level of and, He was sane intelligence. according doctor, the was able to and between distinguish right wrong. means, This of course, in sense as Dr. M’Naghten the Galen indicated he it, understood in the eyes Sikora, of the law the real necessary knew responsible from right and had the wrong to choose between them requisite capacity in deed. M’Naghten’s Case, 200, Eng. Rep. 10 Clark & F. 8 L. (H. 1843).
Defense counsel addressed a hypothetical long question Dr. Galen which covered defendant, the examination of life the history, events the several hours particularly the It concluded with an as to preceding shooting. inquiry whether in the doctor’s in view of all those opinion, facts circumstances, Sikora was a mur- capable “premeditating der” at the time he killed Hooey. objection of the State was sustained. No for the De- ground given objection. fense counsel’s twice-repeated to be heard on the law request was summarily rejected. On the reason for the asking objec- tion, the court said: “The record is complete. The doctor has testified that the defendant was sane.”
We for future in similar suggest guidance situations that the be excused and counsel be jury permitted at least to make of the proffer proof expects to adduce means of the by and to present his question, argument respect to the law claimed to But whenever an support admissibility. important arises, evidence one which problem may present serious rendered at the trial if challenge judgment offer is we recommend that the he taken rejected, proof in the fully of the heard as jury, argument absence to its legal If at the trial point court is propriety. convinced of the evidence, admissibility questioning may be repeated If not so jury. satisfied, in the presence objection a course, will be sustained. Such naturally demonstrated will ease, instant create record which on a by subsequent enable tribunal to appellate will understand appeal clearly the problem. specifics Court, When the cause we felt reached the need for as to nature of the evidence be enlightenment sought elicited from Dr. Con- Galen hypothetical question. a remand further sequently was ordered for the purpose ac- testimonial examination of the direction doctor. Our in the companied by list of to be covered particular matters issues Counsel felt the basic interrogation. were advised we to be testi- whether the called for (1) challenged question mony which comes of the witness within the expertness *11 use in which has sufficient warrant its support scientific to courtroom, the so, and if the answer the witness whether (2) would Con- would aid decision. give jury reaching the in cross- we directed examined and sequently that Dr. Galen be examined with the respect to following: “(1) day homicide, Prior to tlie events of the of did defendant the medically suffer illness from a condition or which constitutes disease so, of If the mind? what is that disease or illness? (2) day Did the events of the the homicide induce a condition medically so, which If constitutes a disease or illness of the mind? illness, is what that disease or and state what facts evidence that or disease illness. (3) prepared testify prior Was the witness to at to the trial that day the events of the of the homicide defendant lacked mental the capacity ‘premeditate’ (see to that term as is defined law State v. Paolo, (1961)). yes, Di N. J. 295 If answer is what the state upon support opinion. facts are relied in of that (4) prepared testify witness Was the at the trial to that the events day deprived capacity of the homicide defendant his to premeditate? so, upon opinion If state the facts which that based is whereby explain specific and mechanism the the events led to that incapacity. (5) prepared testify although that, the witness Was at the trial to capacity premeditate, the defendant had he nonetheless not in did so, upon opinion fact do If state facts so? the which that based is explain opinion. and those how facts lead to that (6) (4) (5) develop afiirmative, If answer to or is in the the the extent, accept any, true, if to which the had to as facts which witness dispute upon depended in were themselves or which which inferences jury might need but not draw. (7) (4) (5) affirmative, If answer to or is in the the what medical deciding will the in technical sources aid Court whether is expertise qualifications with this within the one witness’s opinion. express expert an point (6) (7), By (4), (5), way explanation we and items objection question expert put that a that not a valid
out it is' provided jury decide, very must involves factual issue which knowledge truly expert question witness calls from the beyond understanding jury’s of a matter thus contributes merely question non-expert, opposed asks to a which ken of the is for should be decided. It how thinks case witness Galen, full examination of Dr. the Court desires a reason that begins ends, profession’s expertise such establish where deciding in whether works as will aid the Court references to scientific knowledge sufficiently expert reliable established and claimed in trial of a case. to warrant its introduction given preclude above shall either for examination not outline party party of the witness as that from such further examination inquiry.” believes aid in this will re- Dr. was recalled and Pursuant to the remand Galen that occasion he elaborated training examined. On in He further the explained psychiatry psychoanalysis. in disorder claimed to exist personality sig- human behavior with psychodynamics respect nificance In he furnished a medical disorder. addition list of on which he reliance to his conclu- placed authorities support sions. The substance the additional statements on those sub- been included above connection with the jects already has doctor’s medical theories. qualifications outline of the *12 his to be drawn from and the fairly The conclusion cited is that a oriented psychodynamieally psy- authorities he all human conduct criminal charged chiatrist believes to be e., not as the criminal law i. in it, should be judged judges mens rea and whether it represents terms of an exercise of whether from a rational free but scientific will, viewpoint conduct represents psychologically predetermined emanating disorder the from individual accused. It is personality the homicide, with at least that after thesis, respect his study his life the history, (cid:127)of accused circumstances of a of that background his history, expertise the crime against enables psychoanalyst him to decide as a psychiatrist to occur inevitably whenever predestined was the the killing disorder functional personality subjected to individual’s imposed stress the circumstances which at- type the intentional, tended the being act. Thus a killing, though predestined rather than limited should premeditated, impose criminal consti- in whether the deed responsibility deciding tuted first or second murder or manslaughter.
In applying his case he reiterated Sikora expertise understood and and wrong. could differentiate between right Also, Sikora was a to kill ordinarily able to conceive design and to deliberate until it. In fact he able to do so upon few hours before the But, homicide occurred. because his individual disorder, under stress type personality of certain circumstances which he feels inadequate cope with, tensions build within him and his up psychological mechanism moves into action seem may which on surface planned and deliberate but in to unconscious really response influences and therefore automatic. Galen, to Dr. tensions
According had been building up Sikora, since his particularly female friend rejected him. When was humiliated in the tavern by the remarks about her other men availability because she had broken him, then beaten physically by Hooey his compan- ions, tensions mounted to the where point they repre- sented situation in life with which felt unable cope. So he in an act automatic began the manner way; which with his person personality charac- inadequacy would act. teristically He responded to stress in the way which would his inevitably way be of dealing with that kind stress. He reacted in the automatically fashion of Dr. Galen’s friend when he was physician cut off by another motorist. actions, His successive from home walking tavern, report- the assault him to the ing police, deciding against complaint, criminal from obtaining gun its place of con- in the cealment the extra apartment, putting bullets in his pocket, the note that the first writing bullet was for Doug Miller, and the second for Stella contemplating suicide, test- idea of firing gun, rejecting suicide, reloading stairway on the while gun apartment thinking about *13 in tavern, and the the Hooey beating to walking the tavern an the entrance “talk” to to use alley Hooey, deciding four bullets ont and way, putting effort to draw that Hooey tavern while into from the after some distance Hooey backing was he and him him to come closer advising not warning closer, fire find the would if he came “liable” to out gun still carrying to Miller apartment then woman’s walking of elements her, strong all showed gun searching in the administered by Hooey automatism. The beating his personality tavern of precipitated disorganization least a “acted at that from then on he probably extent an automatic probably way.” semi-automatic way, course from the defendant’s say The doctor went on that in an auto- of be seen that was acting conduct could environ- totally “rather than aware way being matic * * not the state was and the situation ment, Although an there elements “strong automatic one were completely He not conscious of his present. “fully automatism” aware” what was doing. activities” not “completely he had had subjected to which been distorted stress disorder, kind of mechanism. His personality personality him, subjected had made when to that stress pre- life man or premeditating forming vented him from “seeing reality, what is in his life.” He had opinion going rational with with situation reacted conduct been confronted with his characteristic way dealing partic- which it in answer put As doctor to defense ular kind of stress. counsel’s question: cutting you highway may off in a to someone on the react “You may. way your Prosecutor It has to do with than the different way your dealing
personality. do with kind It has to stress.” opined the doctor that circumstances which short In imposed been on his dis subjected had personality or removed his impaired ability stress consciously order a to kill. The or weigh design tension was so premeditate handle it only by he could automatic reaction great
469
motivated
by
predetermined influence of his unconscious.
Plainly the doctor meant
Sikora’s
was not
response
exercise of
voluntary
his free will. The stress was such as to
distort his mechanisms.
the various actions
During
took
leading up
which so
killing,
clearly indicate con
ception, deliberation and
kill,
execution of a
he was
plan
but the
thinking
automatic;
thinking
it was
sub
simply
conscious
reaction;
or
thinking
it was not conscious think
The
ing.
doctor said Sdkora’s anxieties at the time were of
such a nature that
his reaction in
conceivably,
that automatic
way
the commission of the homicide, actually prevented
a further
of his
disorganization
The
personality.
said
killing,
the doctor, was “a rational murder” but
this man
“everything
did was irrational,” and
in when he
engaged
could not con
ceive the
to kill.
design
(The doctor’s
in this case
be contrasted
might
with that
him in State v.
given by
Guido,
40 N.
191, 203
J.
where he said the
(1963),
defendant
temporarily insane not because of a psychosis but
virtue
of “the ascendancy of the unconscious drives which rendered
her, in a
sense,
legal
temporarily insane.”)
now
question
presented whether psychiatric evidence
of the nature described is admissible in first
murder
degree
cases on the issue of premeditation. Defendant
argues
it should have been received at the trial on that
issue. In
so
reliance is
doing
principal
placed on
Gorshen,
v.
People
51
2d 716,
Cal.
In DiPaolo the Chief Justice said that evidence of defect, trait, condition, “any deficiency, or illness which ra bears tionally question” whether the accused did in fact premeditate is admissible in a first murder trial. degree J., at 34 N. 295. But he indicated also p. that if such evi dence was or unreliable too speculative or incompetent when for the determination
tested established in law by concepts issue received on the criminal it should not be responsibility, is the situa thereof. That innocence or guilt New from which here. the M’Naghten concept, tion Under 37, 72 Lucas, v. 30 N. J. declined depart has Jersey (State the differ mental to know he who has the capacity (1959)), is legally responsible ence between right wrong *15 law accepts of society criminal conduct. Eor protection and capable all men are invested with free will the thesis that of state In the present between choosing right wrong. aside in the thesis cannot be put scientific knowledge criminal law. Criminal blameworthi of the administration will and free ness be on basis that negates cannot judged evidence offense, or wholly partially, opinion excuses mechanisms or processes the offender’s psychological he was knew from wrong were such that even though right he did at that time because way to act predetermined stresses set in motion the emotional by unconscious influences him. In a world of such reality persons confronting then their behavior. held for responsible must be some, the law must distinguish Trite as it sound may disease and character Critics deformity. between mental fail or refuse rule of criminal responsibility the M’Naghten which function is not to determine merely realize that its from mental disorder but also to are suffering individuals disabled whose will mentally punishment of the select those are able to make rational they because protect society aid and and wrong. choices between right must be at the level responsibility judged Criminal thinks, plans If a executes person conscious. of the level, denied, act cannot be criminality at that plan he did not realize although it, because wholly partially, think, and to execute the plan was influenced conscious influences which were the of his product unconscious plan by case, environment. So the present and his lifelong genes denied or confined to second be degree cannot criminal guilt was a “rational murder” and the killing murder (when unaware product because thought action), that his decisions and were directed mechanistically conduct unconscious tensions influences bound to result from the to which he the time. If the law were subjected at such a medical accept finding doctrine as a basis for second murder, rather than first doctrine of legal mens rea would all but law. Applying from the disappear Dr. com- Galen’s to crimes intent to theory specific requiring mit, such is difficult to etc., as robbery, larceny, rape, an individual who the deed as imagine perpetrated having the mental conceive the the criminal law sense to capacity intent to commit it. Criminal now society responsibility, it, vanish scene, knows would from the and some other basis with the would found. At offender have to be dealing bottom, this would to be the ultimate aim of the appear psy- Diamond, See “Criminal chodynamic psychiatrists. Respon- 111,” 14 Stan. L. Rev. 82-84 sibility Mentally (1961).
As above, noted defendant that the California argues Gorshen, Henderson, v. cases People supra, People v. *16 The thesis of those is ex support position. cases supra, in Henderson as follows: pressed simply responsibility “Under the Wells-Gorshen rule of even diminished test, though legally according M’Naghton a defendant be sane to the acting suffering prevented if he was from a mental illness that aforethought premeditation deliberation, with malice or with degree.” Rptr., of cannot be convicted murder of the first 35 Cal at 2d, p. P. at 682 386 whether, And the issue dealt with was in of defendant’s light disorder, mental he did or did not act in committing homicide with the intent to constitute first specific necessary Wells, 330, murder. v. 33 Cal. 2d 202 P. People degree Cf. 53, 836, 66 Ct. cert. denied U. 1949), 2d 338 S. 70 (Sup. Ct. L. Ed. 510 for 43, Except S. 94 use of the term (1949). the statement the basic responsibility,” “diminished of princi does not differ from that enunciated in involved State v. ple DiPaolo, But we do not take the California cases to supra.
472 of that evidence of a disorder signify mental subjective be admissible type the matter before us would suggested intent neces show that he did not have the requisite type to establish sary Irrespective of first murder. guilt degree administra cases, however, those scope purposes State, accept tion of the criminal law in this we cannot act thesis that in law for a criminal responsibility perpetrated nonexistent or defendant, sane can be considered by legally lower a crime of measured established for by punishment influ because his act was motivated subconscious degree, by inevi aware, ences of which he was and which stemmed not v. Fisher from his individual structure. tably personality Cf. 1318, States, 467, 470, 473, United U. 66 Ct. 463, 328 S. S. nature is 90 Ed. 1382 A criminal act of that L. (1946). more than the of an impulse nothing consequence not resisted.
In first murder cases degree psychiatric of the adduced here admitted but its type probative should be function limited area of sentence As punishment. Mount, held in N. J. the full we State v. 218 (1959), defendant, unrestrained psychiatric picture aid be shown to if it finds M’Naghten concept, may jury of murder in the whether the first guilt degree, deciding If the psycho- should be death or life penalty imprisonment. reveals a dynamic psychiatric testimony persuasively person defendant, on the the common dysfunction part ality sense of the can be counted on to assess the matter of jury or diminished criminal It responsibiHty. limited within it as a accept their circum province showing mitigating which in fairness and to reduce mercy ought stances Model Code, See Penal culpability. moral Tenta 4,No. comments p. tive 4.02(2); (1955). § Draft of accused for noncapital In the crimes similar prosecution of medical opinion should be made of the relied type use *17 such system, psychiatric our present here. Under testimony purpose. serves a It be post-conviction may included properly or submitted to probation report in the the sen- pre-sentence
473 in his judg- fashion. If other suitable any tencing judge blameworthi- ment reveals limited criminal and discretion it sentence. ness, such be reflected in the fact may in this case: problem To come back to the specific have should been indicated, As we have Dr. Galen’s for consider trial, jury admitted at the and submitted imprisonment issue of punishment—life ation solely deemed prejudicial. or death. But the error cannot be of its part did in recommend life jury imprisonment fact the circum verdict, was Under imposed. and that sentence a new trial and stances, accordingly there is no basis for is affirmed. conviction judgment I in the opinion C. J. join (concurring). Weintraub, Mr. Justice Fbaitois. answer should have Dr. Galen permitted
The trial court was capable premeditating whether defendant question said defendant had already murder. Dr. Galen Although knew it was of murderous act and the nature appreciated insane, still anything and hence not legally wrong add in to that response particular question witness could for the punishment, ques relevant the issue upon would be for calls imposed death sentence should be tion whether the sets to which the law no respect moral judgment consider whatever issue the jury may As to standard. can contribute to understanding or psychiatry medicine Mount, v. N. J. 195 State 30 (1959); a defendant’s behavior. 279, 291, cert. denied DiPaolo, N. 368 U. S. v. J. State however, Since, L. 130, 7 Ed. 2d (1961). 82 S. Ct. imprisonment, recommend life defendant was did the jury in this regard. not prejudiced to Dr. put Galen things, question the surface
On of murder. the issue of the degree Again also upon relevant a defendant was sane at the legally moment that is of no homicide, make-up bear psychiatric may time all did in the mental perform operations whether fact raise murder the second be shown to must which *18 474
murder J., in the first 34 N. DiPaolo, State v. degree. supra, at 294; v. p. Trantino, State 44 J. Dr. Galen N. 358 (1965). was permitted to and the describe Sikora’s nature psychiatric was able to now jury consider issue. We know that upon that the doctor’s assisted further would have not testimony the jury issue, that from the upon but no one could know question itself that the answer would be incompetent.)
In any event a spread defendant should be permitted offer his proof the record the absence of the (in jury, to the end an see whether course) court appellate may there was prejudicial Abbott, error. v. 36 N. J. 77- State an court followed, Unless that course is (1961). appellate have to may reverse conviction because it has no way whether harm follow the knowing was done or be obliged unusual course we took in this case, proffer having made under oath which con- appeal, procedure during sumes time and leave one in doubt as to money may whether the post-conviction offer matches what was in really mind at the time of trial. said,
As I have was put to Dr. Galen question proper on the surface of but the answer now have reveals things, we would be as reason incompetent for the guilt it does not bear upon issues as the law conceives them. Rather it simply challenges concept law’s entire of criminal responsibility.
To put subject we must start with the perspective, common law’s conception crime. The common law re- an evil deed and mens rea—a mind. quired (1) (2) guilty conception This from man’s then emerged understanding himself. It was felt to be a man a unjust crimi- stigmatize nal unless his evil deed was accompanied by evil-meaning was relevant insofar as Insanity only mind. it denied the of an evil intent and thus existence that critical disputed was element State’s It assumed that all men charge. if were able to adhere to the saw the right they right, was hence conceived to be such insanity disease of the mind the accused from prevented understanding nature of law thus separated The wrong. and that it act know a man’s capacity the basis of from the bad sick deemed or defect other Any imperfection what was right. of character personality. a bad trait merely to be an undemon- does upon as it law’s conception, resting *19 who But those man, is of course vulnerable. view of strable more demonstrably a view which attack it cannot offer have nothing edifice but can tear down the authentic. They it. to replace better seems quite Dr. Galen view advanced psychiatric of cause elementary concept
scientific. It rests causes. many of The individual is deemed the product effect. of fact, any he not the author a of As matter historical his or lack of forces, capacity nor of capacity the formative man is his we,know, far as no short, deal them. In so with catch has know, yet so far as we for man own maker. I say of cause-and- The concept a of the ultimate truth. glimpse matters, is dead- most it be for effect, may satisfying though of our being. end to the approach mystery It was not new. of man is view Actually psychiatric another taken an seeing centuries that ago Englishman, for the “But execution, himself, grace said of place “The knew Wordsworth there John Bradford.” God goes has added What the psychiatrist child is father of the man.” individual’s ob- beneath psychodynamics is the detailed behavior. jective a stul- thesis could suggest the cause-and-effect
Abstractly, pen stroke of man’s every whereunder determinism tifying But the psychiatrist, first stirred. was ordained when time that subject philosopher. leaves all, wisely awed itby mind to believe it is on for an inquiring it is not easy Besides the cause-and- Nonetheless infinity. from stretching string view of his patient. the psychiatrist’s thesis dominates effect cause truly beyond deed to some a man’s every He traces the man was that says although own making, actor’s assembled forces in he was unaware of action, of his aware his unconscious which decided his course. Thus the conscious is a puppet, and the unconscious the puppeteer. so,
And Galen, Dr. the psychodynamics expounding Sikora’s murderous started exploit, premise with appreciated the of his act and knew was nature wrong; that Sikora was which indeed aware the events recalled with uncon- detail, but unaware great scious was so constituted that its reaction to his conscious added, had be I under- experience homicidal. The doctor him, stand that the unconscious decided on murder probably in order to avoid complete disintegration personality.
Wowthis is and I will not interesting, quarrel any it. But the do with is whether it has question anything the crime of murder. I think it does not.
The witness described actions as “auto- wholly Sikora’s matic.” While at tidies terms, in other such as that spoke Sikora was not really conscious of what he “fully” was doing * * * despite “long rather clear what history *20 occurred,” and on cross-examination doctor although the found himself between rational and irrational differentiating of ways murder most unscientific committing (a discourse, seems to his professional theme remained con- me), that the scious was the unwitting the unsuspecting puppet unconscious.
Further, “disease” has to do with nothing this automatic behavior. in obeisance to Although M’Naghlen the witness said of a disorder of a “diagnosis” “personality passive type with features” dependent aggressive describes “a mental in disorder” listed the Manual of the American Psychiatric he denied the such Association, reality of classifications. Rather he said mental or disturbances disorders are merely in the from normal” gradients range “essentially to “marked disturbance of the mechanism.” The I thinking point stress the nowise is that automatic thesis in depends upon the exist ence some “disorder” the mind. Rather it accounts for behavior, human whether it be a or all murder the retaliatory of the witness’s doctor friend who cut action off a motorist who off, finger had cut him or the of one’s index raising Dr. rather example than to refer to still another pinky, of the dictatorial control of the unconscious.1 Galen gave man could be convicted Under this no psychiatric concept un the if law were accept impulses anything Although conscious as an excuse for conscious misbehavior. defend to Dr. was whether the Galen specific question put answer murder, his ant was capable premeditating whether defend would have to be the same if he were asked harm or bodily form an intent to do grievous ant was able to un would have to be that harm at all. His answer any stimulus of response conscious directed killing would explanation events The same preceding killing. friend Dr. motoring account for the misbehavior of Galen’s act. a violation of the motor vehicle if he were charged automaton whose shall we do with our fellow What then we deeds? Por one thing, directs such antisocial unconscious pun- no difference. We could say could it makes say mind, an evil-meaning an evil deed accompanied ishing existence of a will to do with the only the law is concerned within the not matter where precisely the evil act and it does resides. mind the evil drive re- of mens rea to concept could the law’s modify
Or we here are an unconscious. The possibilities evil-meaning quire the unconscious would be a thing identify rich. It quite it is evil for the purpose decide whether drive and then Por if we somehow were satisfied example, liability. criminal as an alternative to uncon- murdered another that man suicide because the unconscious believed scious demand shall we psychosis, say kill to avoid a full-blown it had to not a defense? Shall we indict for was or was good there *21 concept apparently differs from the “irresistible 1This automaton concept proclaims impulse” conscious is to in that subservient health, in whereas the irresistible-im in illness or unconscious the pulse concept impulses attempts distinguish between which were to impulses be which could not resisted because of not resisted mental illness. 478
murder a because, motorist who kills ob- another although worst, he was at the jectively negligent psychoanalyst assures us conscious ful- that the man to acted automatically fill an desire for All is unconscious self-destruction? of this much too of support but structure fascinating frothy criminal law. we amend our of criminal
Finally, concept could respon of an sibility by eliminating requirement evil-meaning mind. That true psychiatric is the thrust view for behavior, human while our law criminal seeks to punish those act with a only who sense of and hence wrongdoing excuses because those who of sickness were bereft of that awareness, the a distinction psychiatrist rejects between the sick and To him the bad. no one is personally blameworthy for for his or his acts. To him the law’s make-up distinction between a the mind and a defect defect of character is an Hence, absurd as I say invention. tried a concurring Lucas, in State v. 82 opinion N. J. (1959), else where, “Criminal Alone Responsibility: Psychiatry Cannot It,” A. B. A. Determine J. 1075 (1963), psychiatric would of man lead the law to discard conception insanity think of a defense and to mens rea as more than nothing intent, conscious do the objectively-found, to forbidden act.2 criminal blameworthiness is so subject obscure that there is understandable let for disposition anything jury may whatever use the wish to make of it. But it will receive thesis, not do merely testimony upon automaton be told for the must what its effect jury be. legal may Specif- man must be told whether a is ically, jury chargeable unconscious drives. to me It seems clear that the view psychiatric expounded Dr. is irreconcilable with the simply Galen basic thesis of for while the law, our criminal law of an requires proof evil- 2 Upon approach psychiatry, the law would look not help upon guilt, psychiatry inherently as to the issue which problem post-conviction indifferent, disposition but rather offender, psychiatry may as to which treatment be useful. *22 sneh mind, this thesis denies there is any meaning psychiatric to the To a role in onr structure existing thing.3 grant a non innocent just puppet theme that the conscious is criminal unconscious is to make a mishmash eulpable trier of the facts to law, permitting—indeed requiring—each and law’s choose the automaton thesis existing between It would be absurd to accountability. of criminal concept a thesis psychiatric decide criminal blameworthiness upon as we find basis for blame. So personal long which can no blameworthiness, mens rea must be adhere to criminal sought decided at the level conscious behavior. and — For Chief Justice Justices Weintraub affirmance Hall and Haneman—4. Francis, For reversal—Justices Jacobs, Proctor and Schettino —3. cross-examination Dr. On Galen testified: * your opinion, Doctor, this, Is a “Q. such case referring Defendant, Sikora, now as to what he did happened, part what that there a total on absence of evil Defendant act this at time that this A. committed? Donatelli, Psychiatrist, you Mr. I am a Doctor. I am a are asking discuss, really, philosophical concept me to a which is the concept of evil. Well, basically, you doing, Q. isn’t that what have been Doctor, philosophical— doing philo- a A. No. I have not been dealing sophical, philosophical on a basis. I been have trying medical, hopefully to deal with this a scientific Psychiatrists in which I tried to basis have show that do have knowledge way people operate, they do have a knowl- way edge people particular stress and the react kinds of personality disorganization. stress, based on their In terms of evil, you asking me, talking are I feel somewhat medieval about particularly Psychiatrist’s place I don’t think about evil. Society.” in our to discuss evil