Berry v. State

• Decision Date: 13 December 1968
• Docket Number: No. 768,768
• Parties: Daniel Martin BERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. S 116.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 355

242 N.E.2d 355

251 Ind. 494

Daniel Martin BERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 768 S 116.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 13, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 3, 1969.

Kenneth M. Waterman, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Murray West, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

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. 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 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 accepted by the jury, regardless of whether the jury believes the evidence or not. In other words, defendant's final position is that even evidence which is not credible and which the jury believes to be untrue, because of the witness's lack of credibility, must nevertheless be accepted by the jury as true and overcome the presumption of sanity, where the state has introduced no other evidence. The law in this state is to the contrary. Brattain v. State, supra, must be read in that light, and its reference to evidence means credible evidence. Limp v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 361, 365, 92 N.E.2d 549, 550, states very plainly the law governing such a situation. That case involved the issue of insanity where no direct evidence had been introduced by the state in its part of the case. The court stated:

'* * * to sustain the appellant's contention this court would be compelled to hold as a matter of law that appellant's testimony herein, and what he told the experts upon which they based their opinions, must be taken by the jury as true. It was within the province of the jury to determine what evidence they would believe.'

In refusing to reverse the conviction the court quoted from the case of Freese v. State (1903), 159 Ind. 597, 604, 65 N.E. 915, 917:

'The state introduced no evidence in rebuttal on the question of appellant's sanity, and for this reason appellant insists that the verdict was contrary to law. The substance of the argument is that, as appellant offered evidence tending to prove appellant's unsoundness of mind, the jury was bound to acquit, in the absence of...