Ex parte Turner

• Decision Date: 06 July 1984
• Citation: 455 So.2d 910
• Parties: Ex parte Joseph TURNER. (Re Joseph Turner v. State) 83-62.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 910

455 So.2d 910

Ex parte Joseph TURNER (Re Joseph Turner v. State)

83-62.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 6, 1984.

Hugh C. Henderson, Birmingham, for petitioner.

Charles A. Graddick, Atty. Gen., and Gerrilyn V. Grant, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

EMBRY, Justice.

In September of 1982, Joseph Turner was convicted for the murder of his neighbor. His sentence was life imprisonment.

At trial, Turner entered a plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. After a jury verdict of guilty, judgment was entered thereon. Turner filed a motion for new trial, contending proof of insanity was overwhelming and uncontroverted. That motion was denied. On appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeals, the trial court's judgment was affirmed. We granted certiorari in order to review the appellate court's decision.

I

We begin by stating the general rules of law with respect to pleas of insanity in Alabama. These are succinctly stated by Chief Justice Torbert in Christian v. State, 351 So.2d 623, 624 (Ala.1977):

"We begin by stating the general rule in Alabama that, as persons on trial for commission of crimes are presumed sane, the defense of insanity is an affirmative defense which must be clearly proved to the jury's reasonable satisfaction and the burden of proof in this regard rests on the defendant. Ala.Code, Tit. 15, § 422 (1958); Knight v. State, 273 Ala. 480, 142 So.2d 899 (1962); Smith v. State, 257 Ala. 47, 57 So.2d 513 (1952); Parrish v. State, 139 Ala. 16, 36 So. 1012 (1903). Thus, where a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is filed, the burden upon the defendant is to establish the issue of legal insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. Grissom v. State, 33 Ala.App. 23, 30 So.2d 19 (1947); Lee v. State, 246 Ala. 343, 20 So.2d 471 (1944); Lide v. State, 133 Ala. 43, 31 So. 953 (1901). In this respect, the burden never shifts to the State nor rests on the State. Grammer v. State, 239 Ala. 633, 196 So. 268 (1940).

"In applying these propositions of statutory and case law, it has been stated that the question of insanity at the time of the commission of the crime is a matter to be determined by the jury from a consideration of all the evidence. Carr v. State, 43 Ala.App. 642, 198 So.2d 791 (1967); Hawkins v. State, 267 Ala. 518, 103 So.2d 158 (1958). In making its determination, the jury may reject all expert testimony though it is without conflict. Hockenberry v. State, 246 Ala. 369, 20 So.2d 533 (1945); George v. State, 240 Ala. 632, 200 So. 602 (1941); Parrish v. State, 139 Ala. 16, 36 So. 1012 (1903). However, opinion testimony, even of experts in insanity cases, must be weighed by the jury and may not be arbitrarily ignored. Pickett v. State, 37 Ala.App. 410, 71 So.2d 102, cert. denied, 260 Ala. 699, 71 So.2d 107 (1954); Boyle v. State, 229 Ala. 212, 154 So. 575 (1934)."

In determining the issue presented by this case, we remain cognizant of these general rules regarding pleas of sanity. Further, we respect the great weight to be afforded the verdict of the jury.

II

Because the fact that appellant shot and killed the victim is not an issue on appeal, it is unnecessary to detail the evidence here. Rather, the issue on appeal is whether the appellant, by a preponderance of the evidence, proved that, as a result of a mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Section 13A-3-1, Code 1975. Therefore, we cite only the evidence which tends to illustrate appellant's mental state at the time the killing was done.

Eugene Edwards, who lived in the same neighborhood as the victim and the defendant, stated that he was out in the yard playing dominoes when he saw the defendant walk outside with a pistol in his hand. The defendant shot twice into the ground and said, "I will shoot anybody. I have got a right to do what I am doing." He then walked over to the victim, fired twice, re-holstered his pistol and went back inside.

On cross examination, Edwards testified that he had lived near the defendant for several years and had never noticed any "strange behavior" on the defendant's part, or seen the defendant "bother" anyone. His contacts with Turner were limited to occasions when Edwards needed to borrow gas for his car from Turner.

Mr. Johnny Ruffin was watching the domino game when he heard a shot and turned to look. He saw the defendant fire two shots at the victim and then start mumbling to himself. On cross examination he said that the men in the domino game had been talking about the fact that defendant claimed to be "with the FBI or something."

Officer Ross Spurlock of the Birmingham Police Department arrived on the scene shortly after the shooting and ordered the defendant to "freeze," whereupon the defendant dropped his gun, made no attempt to escape, and surrendered to the police. Spurlock said that the defendant appeared to know where and who he was and appeared to recognize the officer as a policeman.

Birmingham Police Sergeant James E. Gay interviewed the defendant after his arrest and took a statement from him at the police station. Gay testified that during the interview the defendant appeared to comprehend the questions he was asked, claimed to understand his constitutional rights, and seemed to know the difference between telling the truth and telling a lie, insisting that he was going to tell the truth. According to the officer, the defendant understood where and who he was, knew that Sergeant Gay was a police officer, and answered his questions in a forthright manner.

On cross examination, Gay conceded that some of the defendant's answers were "rambling" but concluded that he "didn't notice anything unusual from most of the people that [he] interview[ed] ... it was just a normal interview [like he had] conducted many, many times."

The State presented no expert testimony concerning Turner's sanity.

After the State rested, the defense read into evidence the deposition of Dr. James C. Thompson, staff psychiatrist at Bryce Hospital, who stated that the defendant had been hospitalized in Bryce for approximately one year, from February of 1981 to February of 1982. Based on three interviews, the results of psychological tests, and the defendant's social history, Thompson concluded that the accused was suffering from "schizophrenia, paranoid type." The psychiatrist explained that the defendant had "pretty fixed delusions ... that people are against him ... specifically in this case, it was ... a neighbor or neighbors." Dr. Thompson stated that the anti-psychotic medication Haldol had been prescribed for the defendant.

When asked his opinion of the defendant's mental condition at the time of the incident in question, the physician responded as follows:

"A. It would be hard to say exactly, but from what history we have and the fact that I didn't see him originally--but we felt like that the act of which he was charged, he was acting under a delusion at that time.

"Q. That he was acting under a delusion?

"A. That his neighbor, I believe, was out to get him.

"Q. So would it be your opinion that he was mentally incapable of forming an opinion as to whether or not his actions were right or wrong?

"A. Yes."

On cross examination, Thompson stated that each of his three interviews with the defendant lasted...