United States v. Marvin Ray Huffman

regular service on active having polled requested the Court be (Rule rehearing en banc Procedure; Appellate Local Rules 12) Petition for Fifth Circuit Rehearing En Banc is denied. America,

UNITED STATES Plaintiff-Appellee, Ray HUFFMAN,

Marvin Defendant- Appellant.

No. 72-1013. Appeals,

United States Court of

Sixth Circuit.

Sept. 13, 1972. Appellant

Criminal Procedure. does not deny he that and mailed the letters. wrote conclude We instructions were erroneous and that the court failed Accordingly, comply with 30. we reverse conviction and remand the case for a new trial.

Appellant average is a man of below intelligence, and an avowed homosexual. undisputed history It is that he has a mental disorders and that he was under deeply emotional stress and dis- was turbed at the time wrote these let- he Warner, Louisville, Ky., William T. repeated history He ters. also a has defendant-appellant. for activity. previously criminal He was Barr, Atty., James H. Asst. S.U. writing convicted North Carolina of a George Long, Atty., J. U. S. W. Waver- threatening President, letter and Atty., Louisville, Townes, ley Asst. S.U. conviction, as a result of that he Ky., brief, plaintiff-appellee. for prison fed- transferred from a state to a McCREE, WEICK, PECK Before and prison. eral At the time wrote Judges. Circuit here, letters for which he indicted he was confined the United States McCREE, Judge. Circuit Army Knox, in the stockade at Fort appeal from This is an a convic- having Kentucky, absent with- been tion on three counts of an indictment out leave. charging Huffman mailed three let- During Fort incarceration ters threatened of the lives Knox, confined, period, he was for a to a President and President Vice psychiatric Army ward Ireland Hos- States, violation of 18 U.S.C. § pital intentionally because he cut had 871(a).1 The District Court sentenced own wrists three times the stockade. imprisonment Huffman to for three con- He characterizes these as sui- incidents five-year pursuant current terms to 18 attempts, appellee cide but contends 4208(a)(2). U.S.C. § superficial the cuts were and were Appellant contends that evidence procure tended his release from jury’s support does not determina- the stockade. possessed requisite tion that intent; during instruc- The letters were written June erroneous; tion on letter, intent was and that first The dated June give oppor- court did counsel an was addressed Presi Vice object tunity to to its instructions after dent and stated that kill Huffman would they had been and him if before President did not have Vice begun required had Army its deliberations Huffman released from the within by Rule days provide Federal Rules him and with 871(a) provides: States, § 18 U.S.C. office of President of the United knowingly willfully President-elect, knowing- Whoever de- or the Vice posits conveyance any willfully ly in the mail or for otherwise makes delivery post President, against office or such threat Presi- any letter, paper, dent-elect, letter carrier writ- of- Vice President or other ing, print, missive, or document con- ficer next in the order of succession taining President, threat to take the life of or Presi- the office of or Vice bodily dent-elect, harm inflict the President be fined not more than shall States, $1,000 imprisoned of the United elect, the President- than five more years, the Vice President or other officer or both. next in the order of succession to the $100,000 daughter, The dollar bills.2 lives of President’s 21, 1971, Secretary State, Secretary letter, second dated June Edgar Interior, (the It informed addressed to the President. J. Hoover Director plans Investigation), him made that Huffman had Bureau that he had kill the President and Vice President. It Vice further stat days undergo ed decided to kill the President that Huffman intended to killing change the Vice President.3 sex before become first wom 1971, letter, 27, was third dated an June President of the United States.4 the President and stated addressed to trial, At Huffman’s defense was up mind” had “made Huffman suffering that he a from plan pursuant to a to kill the President disturbance at time wrote let he whereby become the Huffman would ters, and that it was so serious that he owner least of “at one-half of doing did not what he and know letter also threatened States.” The could not to the re conform conduct 18, June, 1971 2. June 3. 21 1971 Agnew Spiro Nixon, T. Vice-President of Mr. Richard President House, AVashington, D. C. White U.S.A. House, AVashington, Dear Sir: AVhite D.C. being writing I am held at stockade. Fort Knox am Dear sir. I this letter to here for I you plans I have been about a month. inform I have made Agnew prisons Kentucky, have in the in been kill since I but Vice-President you Carolina, thought North Florida. are Since have it about a little I have de- you days in Number S. Two command over U. cided to kill I kill before Army you very you Agnew. feeling seem like a smart man should make you good you so I know do not me to kill want to know will about you. you Now, day you. if don’t me to kill want 6 to 8 to live before I kill you, you say. days going do as I will The reason I am wait two before I kill President —kill President get Army 1. You will me out of the Agnew through so can watch them days today day within 14 from 18th this you knowing [sic] hole this —that year June, of give you That will 1971. time can be counted hours on his toe. days you get 12 about after this you Just remember are to die and will letter. get praise all the for it. get $100,000.00 2. You will me and My gay name, Marvin R. Huffman. 20, send it me in 50 dollar bills and Joanne. you quite it better do [sic]. June, 1971 get money 3. You will from the Nixon, Richard bank, anyone you and not let do see be- President of the United States - anything you

cause better Washington, House, White D.C. your depends understand life it. on Get it? Dear Sir: thought you just my up One final do it and I have made mind to kill you quite you day your do it dam [sic]. You know ten the next kill days very long daughter day you is not to live. in ten are after dead you myself, Now to tell a little about and then —and then let about or 60 - years old, very my I am boys put high of places some of 6 feet Washington very 1 inch tall. I wear a size 10 and then soon - ladies my great plan size 14 ladies I will be to start able of My just blouse. does, being hair looks like a woman the owner of at least of one-half you. and I would love to kill You the United But of I will States. course you letter, will following live if do as this have named men killed: you you My if don’t will die. address You, Secretary Secretary State, Ray Huffman, 67079661, is Marvin U.S. Edgar Interior, and, Hoover, J. Stockade, Post Post Office Box A Fort course, gold I will take care of all the Knox, Kentucky. just out of Fort Knox and with all think My number, cell plus South K Cell. killed killed Vice-President (s) Ray get my changed Marvin Huffman and the as I same sex .5 comports makes available support with and the law In quirements of knowledge testimony one scientific modern defense, he submitted continuing Barrett, serve to aid L. psychologist, Curtis of a Dr. development federal law. tests several Jr., administered who had had types Huffman of different questions consideration twice, occasion on one him interviewed responsibility pertaining rebuttal, the four hours. about insanity de- offers when defendant testimony of submitted Government follows: fense are as Jr., Trawiek, John D. psychiatrist, Dr. Huffman suffering interviewed had a mental who 1. Was August County Jail commission Jefferson illness at time of the over an period of “somewhat for a the crime? purpose Dr. principal hour.” The pre- 2. Was that illness such as to with Huffman interview Trawick’s wrongfulness knowing vent his trial, competency to stand to determine his act ? he was testified that Trawiek but Dr. about conclusions able to form some also as Was the mental illness such ear months Huffman’s state incapable substantially to render him lier. conforming to the re- of conduct his charged quirements of the law he is re- parties written submitted Both violating ? with insanity quests instructions on request, defense. In his written as a negative finding to the first A as Attorney as- United the Assistant States negative findings question to or our decision he followed that serted questions both the second and third Smith, 404 F.2d United States v. rejection insanity require of the would 1968). we ex- (6th that case Cir. finding toas An affirmative defense. approval pressed of the standards plus question, the first affirmative in its Draft, stated Law Institute American finding the or either the second as to (Official Penal 4.01 Model Code § require question, a would third 1962)6 : guilty” de- “not because of verdict of responsibili- criminal lack of fendant’s ty. generally to elect adhere We now to responsibility test of the criminal Model Penal Code. the judgment [stated in] of court inIf provides testimony a psychiatric believe it to be a test which lay

We comprehend; to the second readily one which in relation will no issue bodily life to take the more but or I will not be homosexual harm President, very woman, the state- a first woman President mistake, can’t the result States and fools ment not be United thing stop duress, does The statute or coercion. a me. dam to actually say boy, require I think I the defendant The sweet or should carry threat. out the Knox intend to little woman Fort sweetest Roy Ray (quoting Stockade, v. from United Huffman. at 1369 Marvin Id. (9th 874, States, (s) Cir. F.2d 877-878 Marvin Huffman Joanne 1969)). only recently held, 5. This has court the ALI formu- Lincoln, Penal Code In the Model 462 F.2d 1368 States (6th 1972), 871(a) test: that 18 lated this § Cir. U.S.C. responsible requires: person for crimi- is intentionally only con- the time of such if at nal conduct the defendant or statement, oral, mental disease result of duct as a a written or a make capacity lacks substantial or under such circumstances defect context criminality appreciate person would either wherein reasonable [wrongfulness] his conduct foresee that the statement would require- by interpreted his conduct the maker conform those to whom Code Model Penal the law. ments of the statement seri- communicates Draft, 1962). (Official expression an intention to inflict 4.01 ous § erroneously And the this it court delivered need to submit question, there is no jury. plain instruction This was jury. to the requires error which reversal of the con- approving emphasize by We viction remand for de- a new trial by setting forth ALI standard appellant’s spite failure state distinct- not seek- questions we are above ly objection to it. Fed.R.Crim.P. judicial ing require instructions 52(b). States, 325 See Screws v. United specific words. these 91, 107, U.S. 65 S.Ct. 89 L.Ed. specifically in a footnote But we stated (1945); Krosky, United States v. adopt defi- an additional that we did not (6th 1969). 418 F.2d This is nition endorsed the ALI: so the instruction because foreclosed adopt however, not, follow- We do considering jury from whether Huff- ing definition endorsed additional homosexuality man’s and anti-social be- Article, “As used in this ALI: havior were manifestations of a mental do not ‘mental terms disease defect’ might pre- or defect disease abnormality include manifested knowing wrongful- him vented from repeated or otherwise ness act or have him rendered Penal anti-social conduct.” Model conforming substantially incapable of Draft, 4.01(2) (Official Code § requirements his conduct purpose definitional of this sen- theory It law. clear that awas obviously to exclude tence was defense, because defense counsel’s insanity “psycho- the definition closing argument included pathic personalities” demonstrate who following statement: principally by abnormality ha- mental Now, you heard Doctor Barrett’s testi- The ALI the law. bitual violation of mony. opinion was, . . And his . argue men- to date commentators you man, heard, this as because of- nation health this tal facilities circumstances at the hope treat- fer for curative little written, time letters were did not persons, men- ment and that of these necessary capacity have the already over- tal health facilities are form this intent which Govern- patients burdened whom prove. ment must prospects are for treatment successful brighter. considerably is, There how- ever, great dispute psychiat- Doctor Trawick admitted that over the during 4.01(2). you’ve acts that heard here ric of section See soundness day deeply Overholser, Responsibility: the acts dis- were Criminal And, person. me, I Psychiatrist’s Viewpoint, believe 48 turbed A.B.A. Diamond, dictate (1962); think that common sense will From J. 530 Beyond, M’Naghten Currens, don’t have to be to all us that and psychiatrist psychologist (1962). or either a 193-194 Calif.L.Rev. figure a man who does out that (em Smith, supra, F.2d at 727 n.8 things has done is man this phasis added). Cf., United States any respects individual. a normal Brawner, (D.C. 471 F.2d 969 at 992-994 compliance with observe that We might un made reversal Nevertheless, Assistant necessary have afford it would Attorney’s request because includ United States opportunity of cor rejected ed the trial court ed this definition: charge recting before error in its instructions, used in As these began jury its deliberations. terms “mental or defect” do disease part: provides, rule abnormality manifested not include an assign error party may only by repeated No criminal or otherwise charge or omission portion antisocial conduct. objects thereto therefrom unless much in sanity there about and insan- jury ity, retires to consider its entitled, before the I feel that we were verdict, stating distinctly entitled, the matter or we are to have the in- grounds objects and the to which he structed specifically on that issue as objection. Opportunity shall my tendered of his instructions. objection out of the to make disagree. TOWNES: MR. I IAs and, request hearing earlier, said I think that it was redun- party, presence of the out of the I dant. feel that the instructions set jury. out the presented issues that were following proceedings jury, they case, In this I feel were in ac- the court delivered its procedure occurred after cordance with the out set by the structions : Sixth Circuit. Okay. BY THE THE BY COURT: COURT: MR. have, WARNER: That’s all I Your Honor. request Now, any any — BY Okay. instructions? THE further COURT: Overruled. agree any (WHEREUPON, must All of AT THE ABOUT — exceptions? HOUR OF 4:50 THE RE- P.M. JURY TURNED TO THE COURTROOM : WARNER [defense counsel] MR. AND THE FOLLOWING PROCEED- got May approach I’ve the bench? INGS OCCURRED IN OPEN going points. Are we one COURT). argue that now? [The returned its verdicts of go ahead BY THE We can COURT: guilty.] they’re up out. while them take procedure purpose frustrated the right. WARNER: MR. All provide the rule opportunity gave then forms on The court the court to make before corrections verdicts, pro- to return its jury begins deliberations. See ceeded as follows: Wright, Federal Practice Procedure 484, THE BY COURT: n.36; Moore, 284 n.35 & § 8 J. P0.04, Federal Practice and cases cited room, may to their take them You already therein. Since the jury had be- adjourn you may gun deliberate, And Mr. may Marshal. to counsel con- jury till returns. court the the opportunity objec- sidered to make meaningless tions because the court (WHEREUPON, AT ABOUT THE would have understandably been reluc- THE OF 4:30 P.M. RE- HOUR JURY jury tant to recall the to or cor- amend ITS DELIBERA- TIRED TO BEGIN possible rect its instructions. It is also THE AND FOLLOWING TIONS correction would have too come IN PROCEEDINGS OCCURRED jury late —after the had reached a con- CHAMBERS). clusion about the issue affected the got Judge, MR. WARNER: I’ve one erroneous instruction. specific objections —two to the in- judgment The of conviction is given. structions as vacated, and the case is remanded for opinion. retrial accordance with this objection have, Upon retrial, The other sir, jury is after the has been in again begins on structed, based our and discussion before it deliberat previously chambers ing, permitted object that I don’t feel counsel must to given the giv instructions record, which were instructions, the <xs en, relative to adequately hearing jury. the mental issue out of the Upon request, covered the permitted related issue of dimin- counsel must be capacity. ished objection presence I think there is to too make out of of procedure dispute. psychologist jury.7 preferred for testified for One Huffman, psychiatrist complet- and a testified a District to follow after Court ing jury an for Huffman was the Government. is to excuse its instructions begin and had a criminal de- admitted homosexual its with the admonition to record, proof do not constitute so. but this does liberations until it instructed is insanity. proper- jury, Court Then, of The District of counsel absence objections ly the issue may submitted of and be asked to state impressed sanity. The was not any requests for corrections make defense, insanity and with Huffman’s additional With the instructions. guilty absent, suggested of may argue found him on all three counts counsel for changes risking of does the indictment. Court alienation without supported question judge the verdict jury. is has decided When had matter, Huffman evidence. to be- substantial direct the gin previously had been convicted and served with- its deliberations either with or threatening prison for supplemental out sentence instructions.8 United the President life

Reversed remanded. and States. reversing nevertheless is (dissenting). WEICK, Judge Circuit grant- judgment and is of conviction grounds, It ing controverted Huffman trial on two each a new to which, purely letters tech- point out, indeed write and mail the I will President Vice President no nical has substance. threatening States, to kill them opinion majority First, states: daughter, and the President’s “ give did not court . . . [T]he threatening have killed Secre- object its opportunity counsel Ed- taries of State and Interior J. they been had instructions after gar Hoover, making demands begun de- jury had its and before payment large money. sums of required Rule 30 liberations insanity, Proce- Huffman's defense Criminal Rules of the Federal proof sharply and the on this issue dure.” 681, pro- Ry. Co., F.2d 30 was amended Bule Francisco San 1966) ; objection (10th opportunity and United vide an out Cir. 683-684 request by presence Schartner, F.2d States Advisory party. (3d re we are not The Notes Since case, pro- quired in this Committee on Buies state that issue to decide this argu- permit “to to do vision was intended full we decline so. ment of to instructions.” provides: 30, 1. Rule Fed.R.Crim.P. Appeals 8. We or at that the Courts of the evidence observe the close of “At sharply during are divided over the issue whether the trial earlier time such any party prejudice require reasonably directs, re must be shown to the court pro may requests obtained a versal of conviction court file written ceeding compliance law as set with on the Bule instruct Compare Slaton, requests. v. 430 same United States in the At the time forth (7th (re 1970) copies requests 1109, such shall fur- F.2d Cir. 1111 denied), hearing denied, parties. en cert. 400 The court banc to adverse nished proposed 475, 997, 91 L.Ed.2d 448 inform its U.S. S.Ct. counsel 27 shall (1971) States, requests prior ; F.2d to their Carbo v. United 314 action (rehearing jury, 718, (9th 1963) arguments Cir. but court 745-746 argu- denied), denied, 953, 84 after tire cert. U.S. shall instruct 377 1626, (1964) ; party completed. L.Ed.2d No S.Ct. 12 498 ments are Vegas assign portion Las Plumbers Ass’n Merchant error (9th States, 732, charge lie v. 210 unless F.2d 744 or omission therefrom United 1954), denied, 817, objects retires Cir. cert. 348 U.S. thereto before ; verdict, stating 29, (1954) distinct- 75 99 645 S.Ct. L.Ed. consider its objects ly States, with which Hall v. 378 F.2d the matter United 1967) ; objection. Oppor- (10th grounds 349 Cir. Dunn v. St. Louis- his 196 by insanity refuted the record struction on under the claim is ALI rule by quotes opin- adopted panel in its this Court Court Smith, United ion: States v. 404 F.2d 720 (6th 1968), Cir. instructed the fur- following proceed- “In case the this ther as follows: ings the court delivered occurred after instructions, “As used in these

its instructions: terms disease or ‘mental defect’ do By Court: abnormality include an manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise Now, any any request for — anti-social conduct.” ? further instructions correctly This instruction embodied agree any ofAll must — 4.01(2) Section of the Official Draft of exceptions? or (1962). Code, the ALI Model Penal Smith, However, adopting after Mr. Warner [defense counsel]: Code, panel 8 in footnote stated: May got approach the bench? I’ve going points. Are “8 one or we two however, not, adopt We do fol argue now ? lowing additional definition endorsed Article, used in ALI: ‘As this By go the Court: can ahead We the terms “mental or disease defect” they’re up them while out. take do not abnormality include only mani right.” Mr. Warner: All repeated fested appears It thus for de- that counsel otherwise anti-social conduct.’ Model permis- fendant did ask the Court 4.01(2) Draft, (Official Penal Code § approach bench, stating sion 1962). purpose of this defini points. had one or He further obviously tional sentence to ex asked, going argue “Are we insanity clude from the definition of replied, go now?” The can “We ‘psychopathic personalities’ who dem up they’re ahead and take them while abnormality principal onstrate mental agreed by out.” counsel Defendant’s ly violation of habitual the law. stating, right.” objec- “All no He made argue The ALI commentators that to procedure, tion to that but on the con- date mental health facilities trary agreed to it. hope nation little for curative offer Rule 51 of Rules of Criminal persons, treatment of these and that requires party Procedure that a make already health are facilities “known to the the action court which he by patients as whom overburdened objection desires court to take prospects for successful treatment to the action of the court and the is, considerably brighter. are however, great dispute There grounds McNeely therefor . . .” . psy over the States, (8th F.2d 353 913 Cir. 4.01(2). chiatric of section soundness 1965); States, Petro v. United 210 F.2d Overholser, Responsibili See Criminal (6th denied, 1954), cert. 347 U.S. ty: Psychiatrist’s Viewpoint, 48 A. 978, 790, (1964). 74 S.Ct. L.Ed. Diamond, (1962), B.A.J. Currens, M’Naghten From Counsel did known to and Be make the Court acquiescence yond, agreement in and with 193-94 Calif.L.Rev. taking (1962).” (Id. the action which the Court was at right.” by replying, “All He never The defendant not call did to at- objection made an thereto. tention of the at time District Court alleged error second fact that footnote 8 of did not is Smith giving adopt perfect 4.01(2) in Court of an otherwise in- the ALI Model Section timity jury.” given presence to As amended shall be make the ob- of the jection hearing jury July 1, 28, 1966, out of the of the Feb. eff. and, request party, of out of given previously Code, no chambers that I don’t feel Penal Court given opportunity to correct the instruction that the instructions which were given jury. adequately to the relative to the which he had mental issue covered related of dimin- issue Rule 30 is clear that— capacity. ished too I think there is party may assign “No as error sanity much there in about and insan- charge portion of the or omission ity, entitled, and I feel that we were objects he therefrom unless thereto entitled, or we are to in- have the its retires to consider before the specifically structed on that issue as stating verdict, distinctly the matter my tendered in instructions.” grounds objects to and the which objection.” of his It is clear that these did objection, any Defendant made no such ei- to the call Court’s attention ther before or returned to after thing concerning the instruction on Sec conduct its deliberations. 4.01(2) tion the ALI Model Penal deliberating, While was still complaining Defendant Code. following quoted place, as did take give special did not opinion: in the Court’s asking requests, and he was the Court to got Judge, “Mr. one I’ve Warner: give previously had The Court them. specific objections in- —two give requests such in the lan refused given. structions as although defendant, guage employed by general

part were in them charge. requests in are contained objection have, sir, These The other is again in on our discussion based footnote 2.2 Defendant, Ray 2. Comes now the Marvin in the case should “If the evidence by and, pursuant Huffman, counsel, you doubt, reasonable with a leave to Rule Rules Criminal the time and whether at idace Procedure, requests acted, alleged offense, tlie Court to instruct the accused effect, act, forced, law in this fol- on the ease as failed to charged lows : in the indict- the crime commit charged compulsion, 1. “To constitute the crime then ment coercion or joint indictment, acquit there must be a the accused. should operation elements, plea an of two essential ‘not the Defendant’s “Under sanity guilty’ an intent act forbidden law and an as to his there is issue alleged do the act. offense. The at the time of criminally person may guilty be found “Before Defendant law does hold insane, prosecution of a crime the must estab- conduct while for his accountable capable lish, beyond doubt, person a reasonable that un- an insane is since forming der the Statute described these instruc- the com- the intent essential tions, Defendant was forbidden do a crime. mission of charged indictment, sanity the act of the Defendant “The alleged intentionally act. that he committed the time of the commission offenses, charged case is a an the crime “The crime element requires proof charged serious which must be established ci'ime specific doubt, beyond can intent before the Defendant reasonable Government every Specific intent, just ele- be convicted. implies, as the term it must establish other general charged. than means more ment the offense intent within the to commit the act. To establish insane “A Defendant is instructions, specific intent, if, meaning the Government must at the of these prove knowingly alleged conduct, that Defendant time of the forbids, purposefully defect, act law of mental disease or result intending capacity appre- to violate the law. in- Such lacks substantial either may tent be determined from all the facts of his conduct or ciate the lawfulness surrounding requirements the case. circumstances his conduct to conform “An act or a failure to act is ‘know- of law. ingly’ done, voluntarily “Notwithstanding if one ac- done the fact committing tentionally, and not because of some other a crime cused of comprehend the nature and reason. been able to brief, appellant respect specific In his counsel tion with to intent as requested by defendant-appel- 'states: the lant? “Finally, the discussed while “II.

both sets of tendered instructions Did the trial court err in fail- ing during refusing give with the counsel recess to an instruc- instructed, respect jury tion with capac- trial before the to diminished ity impulse in- or requested and indicated that the defendant’s irresistible as tendered, by structions, defendant-appellant re- the as were to be ? giv- jected, counsel for defendant was presented “III. Was the evidence argue opportunity or en no to state jury sufficient, as a matter of as to the instructions his law, permit reasonably to jury the to actually by given Court, before defendant-appellant have found the deliberations, began re- jury as its criminally responsible ?” quired Rules of Federal It is submitted that none of these is- E., pp. Criminal Procedure [T. 4.01(2) sues relate to Section (Brief, p. 208-210].” Model Code and the defendant made no statement that It is clear from this ground such claim in his brief as for re- fully by the Court advised counsel was versal. requests for instructions were that comment brief on footnote 8 in complaining that rejected, but he is now is, The footnote Smith. states: “There again opportunity he was no to great dispute psy- however, a over the argue began its de- thém before the 4.01(2).” chiatric soundness of section previously point- liberations. As I support In of this two articles statement argue out, the matter ed he consented to legal psychiatrists No are cited. requests None of 4.01(2) after submission. authority holding ALI cited is the Model dealt with Section is not a sound statement of section Code. law. stating brief, issues day hope yet arrived has presented required by Rule for review as abnormality manifested when 28(a)(2) R.App.P., appellant by repeated anti- or otherwise criminal stated: as a considered conduct will be social defect, proof err of which “I. Did the trial court in fail- or mental disease charge. ing refusing give to an instruc- to a criminal will a defense consequenees act, time of and to know at of his sane the Defendant was offense, you wrong, nevertheless, alleged him if he will find it was impulse may though appear guilty, its it was forced to execution even powerless control, and later times. at which he was consequence was sane earlier de- raised of a mental disease or has “Where a Defendant fect, insanity, acquitted. finds he will be of his issue beyond person in the case “A accused of a crime is not the evidence responsible the accused unless he had sufficient will doubt reasonable alleged power impulse of- to control his the time of commit insane at duty charged. fense, the act it still is throwing light purpose in the case “For the evidence consider all state the mental condition of the accused determination aid including alleged offense, mind, evidence offered the time of the all Jury may insanity, in order evidence consider of his on the issue as to acted state both before the Defendant and after time. determine whether specific intent, issue, however, The material is whether failed act with charged. the Defendant was sane insane at the alleged time of in the case leaves conduct. “If the evidence “Temporary insanity, whether a reasonable doubt as well as with sanity capable longer duration, recognized by the mind of the accused form, specific forming, intent the law. or did charged, “If the evidence in the crime case leaves commit acquit with a reasonable whether accused.” doubt should rapist, permitted, such were ever If

burglar, robber, of chil- thief, molester

dren, com- murderer would have a and a proving

plete that he merely defense in the acts

committed such antisocial insanity.

past to establish not hold does

Footnote 8 Smith prejudicial error for a Court it is 4.01(2). charge on Section my proper opinion, it was charge 4.- plain on Section error 01(2). permits does which but rule plain require er to notice brought to the attention

rors not Court, intended to de

District Gray stroy v. 30. United States Rule don, (4th 429 F.2d 120 judgment of the

I would affirm the

District Court. Key Jefferson, pro. per.

Will Burr, (argued), Richard A. Helm Garrett, III, Kurtz, Richard Pease & W. Atty. (argued), E. Have- Asst. John Gen. Ely, Rudd, lock, Atty. Gen., An- Guess & defendants-appel- chorage, Alaska, lees. MERRILL, Before DUNIWAY JEFFERSON, Key Plaintiff-

Will TRASK, Judges. Circuit Appellant, PER CURIAM. al., Defendants- et M. ASPLUND John appeal from dismissal is an This Appellees. Appel- rights appellant’s action. civil No. 71-2398. assignments error, lant makes three Appeals, United States Court merit. find without all we to be Circuit. Ninth Appellant de that the 1. asserts Sept. 1972. their motion sum fendants waived serving by filing mary judgment filing subsequent their answer summary judgment. their motion for contrary plain reject we 56(b) language of Rule Procedure.

Rules of Civil Appellant asserts that he prescribed by the not receive the notice Federal Rules of Civil Procedure hearing on motion to set aside sum mary judgment. The record establishes adequate notice. that he received Appellant asserts giving effect District Court erred is inconsis- local since that rule

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Marvin Ray Huffman

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Date Published: Sep 13, 1972

Citation: 467 F.2d 189

Docket Number: 72-1013

Court Abbreviation: 6th Cir.