U.S. v. Burks

• Decision Date: 30 December 1976
• Docket Number: No. 76-1596,76-1596
• Citation: 547 F.2d 968
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Wayne BURKS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 968

547 F.2d 968

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Wayne BURKS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 76-1596.

United States Court of Appeals,

Sixth Circuit.

Dec. 30, 1976.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1977.

Thomas W. Moon, Bart C. Durham, III, Nashville, Tenn. (Court appointed CJA), for defendant-appellant.

Charles H. Anderson, U. S. Atty., Richard L. Windsor, Nashville, Tenn., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before WEICK and LIVELY, Circuit Judges, and CECIL, Senior Circuit Judge.

LIVELY, Circuit Judge.

This appeal from conviction for armed bank robbery seeks reversal primarily on the ground that the government did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Burks was sane at the time he robbed the bank. The government has the burden of proving sanity once a prima facie defense of insanity has been raised. United States v. Smith (Smith II ), 437 F.2d 538, 541 (6th Cir. 1970).

Appellant contends that no witness for the prosecution testified that defendant was substantially capable of conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law he was charged with violating. While they did not agree on the proper diagnosis of appellant's condition, three expert witnesses for the defense testified that Burks suffered from a mental illness at the time of the bank robbery and that he was substantially incapable of conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law against robbing banks. This evidence was directed to the questions identified by this court as critical to the inquiry in United States v. Smith (Smith I ), 404 F.2d 720, 727 (1968), where we wrote:

The questions for jury consideration pertaining to criminal responsibility when defendant offers an insanity defense are as follows:

1. Was he suffering from a mental illness at the time of the commission of the crime?

2. Was the illness such as to prevent his knowing the wrongfulness of his act?

3. Was the mental illness such as to render him substantially incapable of conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law he is charged with violating?

A negative finding as to the first question or negative findings as to both the second and third questions would require rejection of the insanity defense. An affirmative finding as to the first question, plus an affirmative finding as to either the second or the third question, would require a jury verdict of "not guilty" because of defendant's lack of criminal responsibility.

Even though the only expert evidence in the present case directed to the issues set forth in Smith I indicated one conclusion, the jury was not required to accept the expert testimony as conclusive if there was other evidence from which they could reach a contrary determination. However, the fact that the experts disagreed on the precise form of mental illness with which Burks was afflicted did not create a jury issue.

The appellant argues that the jury should not have been permitted to consider either the expert or lay testimony of government witnesses on the insanity issue since it was not directed to the criteria adopted in Smith I. The government contends that evidence of the detailed advance planning of the robbery and the behavior of Burks during and immediately after the robbery was relevant to the issue of whether Burks was under such stress as to make him incapable of complying with the laws against robbing banks.

Psychiatrists and psychologists are not limited to answering the three questions set forth in Smith I, supra ; but may testify broadly as to their contacts with a defendant who relies on an insanity defense, and state their conclusions as to his condition, in medical as well as legal terms. The extent to which lay testimony should be considered on the issue of sanity has been treated in opinions of this court as well as others. Smith II, supra, 437 F.2d at 541; Smith I, supra, 404 F.2d at 728; Pollard v. United States, 282 F.2d 450, 460 (6th Cir. 1960); United States v. McGraw, 515 F.2d 758, 760 (9th Cir. 1975); Brock v. United States, 387 F.2d 254, 257-58 (5th Cir. 1967). No clear rule emerges from reading these opinions. Therefore, each case in which expert evidence on the question of sanity is sought to be rebutted by lay testimony must be decided on its own facts. United States v. Fratus, 530 F.2d 644, 648 (5th Cir. 1976).

Though they gave detailed accounts of their contacts with the defendant and opinions concerning his emotional problems, two expert witnesses for the government in the present case did not express definite opinions on the precise questions which this court has identified as critical in cases involving the issue of sanity. The government also presented several eyewitnesses to the robbery, a cab driver from whom Burks took a taxi at gun point immediately prior to the robbery...