Berry v. State, No. 768
| Docket Nº | No. 768 |
| Citation | 242 N.E.2d 355, 251 Ind. 494 |
| Case Date | December 13, 1968 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 355
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 3, 1969.
Kenneth M. Waterman, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Murray West, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
[251 Ind. 495] ARTERBURN, Judge.
The appellant was charged with robbery and was found by a jury to be guilty as charged. On appeal, he claims the trial court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial.
Appellant does not deny, nor is the fact disputed that he robbed a liquor store. The clerk of the liquor store apprehended the appellant and held him until the police arrived. The defense raised was a special plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. Appellant argued that there was a failure of proof because the state failed to produce evidence to establish that the appellant was able to willfully control his impulse to commit the act charged.
In Indiana there is a presumption of sanity of a defendant. However, the burden rests on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in the trial court that defendant was sane at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. Normally the presumption of sanity is sufficient to sustain such burden unless the defendant has introduced credible evidence to the contrary.
Page 356
Brattain v. State (1945), 223 Ind. 489, 61 N.E.2d 462.To satisfy this burden the state must prove:
1. That the accused could know and comprehend the nature and consequences of his act. The nature of the act embraces knowledge on his part that the act was wrong, for if the accused be unable to distinguish right from wrong, he would not know the nature of his act.
2. That the accused had sufficient will power to control his impulse to commit the act charged. Flowers v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 151, 163, 139 N.E.2d 185, 193.
Appellant takes the position that having introduced evidence tending to show insanity and the state having introduced no evidence, the presumption of sanity is overcome. Appellant claims under the statement in Flowers v. State (1956), supra, the jury is compelled to accept the version of [251 Ind. 496] the evidence offered by the defendant and find the defendant insane, and therefore we should reverse the case on that basis.
With this contention we cannot agree because it is not reasonable nor logical. It is true there is some comment in Flowers v. State, supra that might be urged to support the defendant's position. However, we cannot accept a principle of law which says that any evidence introduced by the defendant which tends to prove insanity will overcome a presumption of sanity and must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Young v. State, No. 1071S301
...Inc., 425 Pa. 519, 229 A.2d 861 (1967). See, also, 9 Wigmore, 3rd Ed. § 2490 et seq. (1959).' Our case law prior to Berry v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 494, 242 N.E.2d 355, provided that the burden of producing evidence had been met when 'some' evidence of insanity has been introduced. See, Flo......
-
Sypniewski v. State, No. 976S315
...to accept the testimony of a witness as true simply because it is not directly contradicted by other testimony. Berry v. State, (1969) 251 Ind. 494, 242 N.E.2d 355, cert. denied, 394 U.S. 1007, 87 S.Ct. 1608, 22 L.Ed.2d 786 (1969); Limp v. State, (1950) 228 Ind. 361, 92 N.E.2d 549. However,......
-
Merriman v. Kraft, No. 769S159
...presenting evidence to show that the accident 'was not caused by any lack of reasonable care on his part.' Berry v. State (1968), Ind., 242 N.E.2d 355. It further appears from the transcript that the court's Instruction No. 4 was as 'COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 4 'The plaintiff, Marion H. Kraft......
-
Hollander v. State, No. 3--1072A73
...of insanity that a question of fact is presented to the trier of fact. Young v. State (1972), Ind., 280 N.E.2d 595; Berry v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 494, 242 N.E.2d 355. Thus, the fundamental issue to be decided is: Was William Hollander's sanity a question of fact to be decided by the trial......
-
Young v. State, No. 1071S301
...Inc., 425 Pa. 519, 229 A.2d 861 (1967). See, also, 9 Wigmore, 3rd Ed. § 2490 et seq. (1959).' Our case law prior to Berry v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 494, 242 N.E.2d 355, provided that the burden of producing evidence had been met when 'some' evidence of insanity has been introduced. See, Flo......
-
Sypniewski v. State, No. 976S315
...to accept the testimony of a witness as true simply because it is not directly contradicted by other testimony. Berry v. State, (1969) 251 Ind. 494, 242 N.E.2d 355, cert. denied, 394 U.S. 1007, 87 S.Ct. 1608, 22 L.Ed.2d 786 (1969); Limp v. State, (1950) 228 Ind. 361, 92 N.E.2d 549. However,......
-
Merriman v. Kraft, No. 769S159
...presenting evidence to show that the accident 'was not caused by any lack of reasonable care on his part.' Berry v. State (1968), Ind., 242 N.E.2d 355. It further appears from the transcript that the court's Instruction No. 4 was as 'COURT'S INSTRUCTION NO. 4 'The plaintiff, Marion H. Kraft......
-
Hollander v. State, No. 3--1072A73
...of insanity that a question of fact is presented to the trier of fact. Young v. State (1972), Ind., 280 N.E.2d 595; Berry v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 494, 242 N.E.2d 355. Thus, the fundamental issue to be decided is: Was William Hollander's sanity a question of fact to be decided by the trial......