Albany v. United States, 11188.
| Decision Date | 20 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 11188.,11188. |
| Citation | 377 A.2d 1145 |
| Parties | Herbert ALBANY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Appellee. |
| Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Charles Rosenbleet, Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Edward D. Ross, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Washington, D.C., with whom Earl J. Silbert, U. S. Atty., John A. Terry, William D. Pease, and Martin J. Linsky, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D.C., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before KERN, NEBEKER and MACK, Associate Judges.
Appellant appeals his second-degree murder conviction. It arose from a shooting on 14th Street, N.W. from circumstances reflecting that the victim had earlier robbed appellant to recover money paid for what turned out to be "bad" heroin, thus supplying a motive. The only identifying witness — one Rufus Waters — saw appellant shoot the victim. Before trial, the prosecution disclosed that four years earlier Waters had been ordered to St. Elizabeths Hospital for a mental examination in connection with a pending robbery charge. As a result, appellant obtained additional information containing opinions as to recommended treatment for abnormal behavior respecting Waters. He then moved that Waters be given a mental examination. After a hearing at which Waters testified, and a subsequent examination of what appeared to be all of the most current available records on his mental condition, no characteristic of testimonial incompetency was found. The motion was denied and Waters was declared competent to testify, as he indeed did at trial.
The "single issue presented . . . relates to the defense request for a mental examination of [Waters] the key and sole Government eyewitness." (Brief for Appellant at 2 n. 1.) The government states the issue presented in a most effective way viz., issue identification, scope of review, and factual context expressed in a compressed and accurate manner. It views the issue to be:
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding Rufus Waters competent to testify and consequently in refusing to order an additional mental examination of him when on two separate occasions Waters had been found competent to stand trial when the only indicia of any emotional problem was of questionable reliability, or probity on the issue of competency and was superseded by subsequent and more relevant evaluation; when there was no indicia of any current mental health problem; and when the court was satisfied that all material data bearing on the issue had been presented to the court? [Brief for Appellee, "Issue Presented".]
From our review of the record, we are not persuaded that we must hold that the trial court's exercise of its discretion1 in refusing to order yet another mental examination for Waters, or in determining his competency to testify, requires reversal. See United States v. Benn, 155...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. United States
...overcome the presumption against ordering a competency examination for a witness. Hilton, supra, 435 A.2d at 387-88; Albany v. United States, 377 A.2d 1145, 1146 (D.C. 1977). In seeking production under Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. at 87-88, 83 S.Ct. at 1196-1197, of records indicatin......
-
Whitaker v. US, 91-CF-674.
...we hold that the denial of an additional mental examination did not result in the denial of a fair trial. See Albany v. United States, 377 A.2d 1145, 1146 (D.C.1977). Appellant also contends that the trial judge erred by instructing the jury, over defense objection, on kidnapping as a lesse......
-
Hilton v. United States, 79-290.
...when the witness is criminally connected with the offense as they are when the witness is a mere bystander. See Albany v. United States, D.C. App., 377 A.2d 1145 (1977). 3. The trial court found that the government made no deliberate attempt to delay 4. Appellant Shepard contends that he wa......
-
Vereen v. US
...to order examinations for witnesses with histories of psychiatric treatment. See, e.g., Hilton v. United States, supra; Albany v. United States, 377 A.2d 1145 (D.C.1977). Our opinion should not be construed 4 In determining whether examinations are necessary, trial judges "must weigh the po......