Christian v. Com.

• Decision Date: 28 November 1960
• Docket Number: No. 5198,5198
• Citation: Christian v. Com., 117 S.E.2d 72, 202 Va. 311 (1960)
• Parties: JACK MONROE CHRISTIAN v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. Record
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 72

117 S.E.2d 72

202 Va. 311

JACK MONROE CHRISTIAN v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.

Record No. 5198.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia

November 28, 1960.

David G. Simpson (Scully and Woltz, on brief), for the plaintiff in error.

Reno S. Harp, III, Assistant Attorney General (A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General, on brief), for the Commonwealth.

JUDGE: SNEAD

SNEAD, J., delivered the opinion of the court.

On December 17, 1959, Jack Monroe Christian, who pleaded not quilty to an indictment which charged him with murdering John D. Cox, Jr., was convicted of murder in the first degree. The jury fixed his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for a term of thirty years. The trial court overruled defendant's motion to set the verdict aside and entered judgment on the verdict. Defendant admitted killing Cox and his sole defense was that he was insane at the time the act was committed.

Defendant alleged in his assignments of error that the court erred in refusing to set the verdict aside as contrary to the law and the evidence, because the evidence conclusively showed that he was insane. His other assignments of error were abandoned during argument at the bar of this court.

On July 7, 1959, the court granted defendant's motion, by counsel, requesting that he be examined by a psychiatrist of his own choosing at the Northwestern Psychiatric Clinic, in Winchester. Dr. Basil E. Roebuck examined him and suggested that he be committed for prolonged observation. Subsequently, on motion of defendant's counsel, the court committed defendant to Central State Hospital, in Petersburg, for observation. The superintendent of the hospital was directed to cause an investigation and report to be made on the then mental condition of defendant as well as his mental condition on June 14, 1959, the date on which the offense charged against him occurred. His report, dated November 5, 1959, follows:

'After evaluation by our staff, it is our opinion that under a strict interpretation of the M'Naghten rule the patient is now responsible and probably was responsible at the time of the offense. However, this patient is suffering from a mental illness of long standing, and this illness was a predisposing factor in the commission of the crime. We are also of the opinion that this patient needs to be institutionalized as his mental condition renders it impossible to predict whether he will act in an assaultive manner again in the future. At the present time, this patient is able to cooperate with his counsel in his own defense, and therefore, he should be returned to court for disposition of his case.'

There was no material conflict in the evidence relating to the events which culminated in the killing of Cox. On June 14, 1959, defendant left his place of employment about one o'clock, p.m., went home and changed his clothes. He then proceeded to Steve's Restaurant on Kent street in Winchester. As he left the restaurant, he observed Monty Ash and Cox standing on the porch of a nearby poolroom engaged in a conversation. Defendant walked around the corner and entered Ritter's Variety Store, where he purchased a pair of shoestrings and a beer. When he departed from the store, Ash and Cox approached him, and Cox demanded that defendant pay him thirty cents which he claimed defendant owed him. Defendant informed Cox that he did not have the money, and Cox replied he was going to get the money one way or another. Defendant then went to his home on Freemont street and drank some beer.

Later in the day he returned to Steve's Restaurant and drank beer and whiskey which he 'started feeling'. On his way back home, defendant encountered Cox, Ash, Julius Newsome and James H. Doleman, and another argument ensued between defendant and Cox. According to Newsome, Cox told defendant 'he was going to blow his brains out' and put his hand in his back pocket. Whereupon defendant remarked: 'You killed Nixon [Nathan] Carter; I ain't going to let you kill me.' Defendant told Cox to wait until he came back. He ran across an open field to his home, secured a butcher knife, returned in about five minutes, 'hollored' and stabbed Cox several times which resulted in his sudden death. There had been no prior trouble between defendant and Cox.

The record discloses that Cox had been convicted for killing Nathan Carter. It is silent as to whether the conviction was for murder or manslaughter, and what punishment he received.

The Commonwealth introduced evidence which tends to show that defendant was normal and rational soon after the slaying. Officer Hildebrand, who arrived at the scene with Officer Dunn shortly after the act was committed, testified that defendant walked up to him and admitted killing Cox. He led Hildebrand to a nearby woodpile where he had thrown the knife. Upon arrival at the police station he was interrogated. There, according to Hildebrand, he was coherent and 'was talking normal.' He made a statement to police officers, which was reduced to writing, concerning the circumstances relating to the crime.

Defendant relies heavily upon three expert witnesses called by him who gave testimony as to his mental status. Mrs. Florence Farley, Chief Psychologist at Central State Hospital who supervised the study of defendant while there, described his illness as 'schizophrenic reaction, chronic undifferentiated type'. When asked to explain the diagnosis she said: 'It is a form of mental disorder which is characterized by changes in thinking, changes in effect or in feeling, or emotion, and changes in one's, alterations in one's interpersonal relationships or understanding of reality.' She stated that he had very strong aggressive impulses, and that he possessed some paranoid elements. In response to a lengthy hypothetical question, it was her opinion that the person described was suffering from some mental disease which affected his will power at the time the event occurred, and that it was 'highly possible' his act was a result of an impulse which she seriously doubted he could have resisted. She was asked: 'Now, then, from your observation, from your testimony in regard to your conclusions as to these reports, is a person of this type not accentuated into action by alcohol and drinking?' Her reply was: 'That is possible.' Mrs. Farley further stated that schizophrenic individuals are extremely unpredictable.

Dr. Wilbur Hamman, Psychiatrist in charge of criminal evaluation at Central State Hospital, diagnosed defendant's mental illness as 'a rather severe form of ambulatory schizophrenia'. He testified that defendant was definitely suffering from a mental disease affecting his will power at the time the act was committed; that he was 'extremely mentally and emotionally disturbed and unable to control his behavior', and that in his opinion the act in question was one of impulse which he did not believe defendant could have resisted. He was asked if he had an opinion as to whether defendant was able to distinguish right from wrong and to know the nature and consequences of his act. He replied: 'Well, this is a real hooker, whether he knew the consequences of his act at the time he committed the act. I don't know. Most probably he did. Certainly, immediately afterwards he was aware of the consequences of his act and certainly aware of the difference between right and wrong.' Later he said: 'If I felt that he did not know either the right from wrong, or the nature and quality of his act I would not have recommended that he return to court.'

Dr....