Brooks v. Rose, 74-1843

• Decision Date: 30 July 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74-1843,74-1843
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
• Parties: Donald BROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James H. ROSE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

Page 775

520 F.2d 775

Donald BROOKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James H. ROSE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 74-1843.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

July 30, 1975.

Russell X. Thompson, Memphis, Tenn. (Court-appointed), for petitioner-appellant.

R. A. Ashley, Atty. Gen. of Tennessee, W. Henry Haile, II, Nashville, Tenn., for respondent-appellee.

Before WEICK, McCREE and ENGEL, Circuit Judges.

WEICK, Circuit Judge.

Donald Brooks, an inmate of the Tennessee State Penitentiary in Nashville, has appealed to this Court from an order of the District Court denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

In three indictments filed in the state court, he was charged with murder in the first degree and with assault on two other persons with intent to commit murder in the first degree. He was represented by retained counsel and entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.

The three indictments were consolidated for trial before a jury. He was found guilty by the jury of second degree murder and guilty of assault with intent to commit murder in the second degree of the other two persons. The jury sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment on the murder conviction and to one year's imprisonment on each of the assault convictions. The state court made the sentences consecutive and they totaled twelve years.

Brooks appealed to the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals where his conviction was affirmed. The Supreme Court of Tennessee denied certiorari. Brooks v. State, 489 S.W.2d 70 (Tenn.Cr.App.1972).

Brooks then filed in the District Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. His sole claim was that evidence was totally lacking to establish that he was sane at the time he slashed the throats of two women and one man, with a straight razor, and that his due process rights were thereby violated.

The District Court determined that the case could be heard on the transcript of evidence adduced at the criminal trial and the exhibits. The transcript consisted of five volumes. This procedure has not been questioned.

The District Court heard oral arguments and wrote a Memorandum Opinion and Order in which it discussed at length the facts of the case and the legal issues involved. There is no issue over exhaustion of state remedies.

It was undisputed that Brooks, with a straight razor, did slash the throats of Mrs. Nina Minor, her husband, Cave Minor, and Mrs. Marjorie Almond. Mrs. Minor died at the scene. Mr. Minor and Mrs. Marjorie Almond recovered.

Brooks' only defense was that he was temporarily insane at the time he slashed the throats of the two women and one man with his straight razor. To support this defense he relied on the testimony of four psychiatrists, three of whom examined him while he was in the county jail. The state called no expert testimony on this issue. Instead, it relied on the words and acts of Brooks prior to, during, and after the slashings, and the totality of all the evidence in the record, all of which it claimed required submission of the issue of temporary insanity to the jury for determination under Tennessee law.

Brooks contends that there was not an iota of evidence in the record to support the jury's verdict that he was sane at the time of the slashings. This is the sole issue in the case.

The general rule is that the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction in a state court prosecution is not reviewable in a Federal habeas corpus proceedings. United States, ex rel. Johnson v. Illinois, 469 F.2d 1297, 1300 (7th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 920, 93 S.Ct. 1560, 36 L.Ed.2d 313 (1973); Robinson v. Wolff, 468 F.2d 438, 440 (8th Cir. 1972); Ballard v. Howard, 403 F.2d 653, 654 (6th Cir. 1968). However, a conviction which is totally devoid of evidentiary support as to a crucial element of the offense is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Vachon v. New Hampshire, 414 U.S. 478, 94 S.Ct. 664, 38 L.Ed.2d 666 (1974); Thompson v. Louisville, 362 U.S. 199, 80 S.Ct. 624, 4 L.Ed.2d 654 (1960); Phillips v. Neil, 452 F.2d 337, 342 (6th Cir. 1971). Such a claim is reviewable in a federal habeas corpus proceeding.

The instant case, we believe, illustrates the difficulty a habeas corpus petitioner will have in applying the standards of Thompson v. Louisville, supra, and similar cases, where the only issue at the petitioner's trial was his mental state at the time of the acts charged.

The question before this Court is limited to whether the record contains any relevant evidence whatsoever to support the jury's finding, implicit in its verdicts, that Brooks was sane under Tennessee law at the time he committed the acts for which he was tried.

For determining insanity Tennessee applies the M'Naghten Rule which is the ability to know right from wrong. Spurlock v. State, 212 Tenn. 132, 368 S.W.2d 299 (1963). Under this Rule the defendant has the burden of making out a prima facie case that he was insane at the time of the offense. Spurlock v. State, supra, at 134, 368 S.W.2d 299; Mullendore v. State, 183 Tenn. 53, 60, 191 S.W.2d 149 (1945); King v. State, 91 Tenn. 617, 647-648, 20 S.W. 169 (1892); Stuart v. State, 60 Tenn. (1 Baxter) 178 (1873).

A defendant who has proven a prima facie case of insanity is entitled to acquittal under Tennessee law if from "all the proof in the case (the jury has) a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was sane at the time he committed the act charged." King v. State, supra, 91 Tenn. at 647. ¹

The Supreme Court of Tennessee has held that the words and acts of a defendant immediately before, during, and after the offense are the best evidence of his state of mind at the time of the acts charged. Mullendore v. State, supra, 183 Tenn. at 60, 191 S.W.2d 149. Expert testimony concerning the defendant's mental state at the time of the acts charged is received with caution. Wilcox v. State, 94 Tenn. 106, 113, 28 S.W. 312 (1894); Collins v. State, 506 S.W.2d 179, 184 (Tenn.Cr.App.1973), cert. denied ; Sparkman v. State, 469 S.W.2d 692, 696 (Tenn.Cr.App.1970), cert. denied.

Sparkman clearly indicates that where testimony as to the facts permits even an inference that the defendant was sane at the time of the offense charged, the jury is entitled to reject expert and lay opinion testimony to the contrary.

Merely because the defendant offers favorable expert testimony as to his insanity and the prosecution offers no expert testimony does not require the Court to find for the defendant. Sparkman v. State, supra; Perkey v. Cardwell, 369 F.Supp. 770 (S.D.Ohio 1973), aff'd, 492 F.2d 1244 (6th Cir. 1974, without published opinion).

The facts are summarized in the Opinion of the District Court. It stated:

The petitioner, a Negro, went into a restaurant in Ripley, Tennessee, and got into an argument with certain white patrons and the proprietor's wife. There is diametrically opposed evidence on who started the argument and who used the profanity and racial epithets. In any event, the argument resulted in assault and ultimate force involving the petitioner and patrons. In the process, the proprietor's wife threw a glass of water in the petitioner's face, and he was struck on the head with a fist or an ashtray or both to the extent that he was bleeding. He then went outside the restaurant to his car, got a razor, came back in the restaurant and slashed three non-combatant customers, killing one of them. After he surrendered to the local police and was taken to the hospital, it was determined that he was near the point of death, due to head and other injuries inflicted on him in the mele at the restaurant.

The District Court further stated in its Opinion:

The State called fourteen witnesses; thirteen of these witnesses had been in the restaurant at the time as employees or patrons. The State's other witness was the policeman who confronted the petitioner at the scene and arrested him.

There is evidence in the record concerning the incident at the restaurant from which a jury could conclude that the petitioner was in command of his faculties and acting with purpose. He did go from the restaurant to his automobile, found his keys, opened the trunk, found and retrieved a razor, went back to the door of the car, opened it and either stood there or got in. When he returned to the restaurant and ultimately accosted the Almonds, he apparently remembered that someone had thrown a glass of water in his face. He made an exclamation to the effect that Mrs. Almond was the one who had done it. (Tr. 264) Then, when he was confronted by a policeman drawing his gun from his holster, he had the presence of mind to put his razor in his back pocket. (Tr. 275) When his wife saw him in the hospital he apparently had some recollection of the events that had taken place because he asked her, "Did they get the other two men?" (Tr. 614) It is reasonable to infer that he was referring to the white men with whom he had argued in the restaurant. Also, the jury might have placed stock in the statement of O. D. McBroom that Mr. Brooks suggested killing everyone in the restaurant when he returned with his razor. (Tr. 292) If petitioner were, in fact, undertaking such a project rather than simply trying to get even with those who had set upon him, that would account for the seemingly irrational cuttings of innocent bystanders. ²

On the other side of the coin there is evidence in the record from which the jury could draw the conclusion that the petitioner did not have command of his faculties and did not know the difference between right and wrong at the time of the incident. Apparently, he had been a model of good citizenship and had never demonstrated a violent nature before this incident. He did receive an injury to his head, and did return to the restaurant and cut three people with whom he did not have a quarrel, unless, of course, he deemed himself as having a quarrel with all the white people in the...