Farris v. Com.
Decision Date | 14 October 1968 |
Citation | 163 S.E.2d 575,209 Va. 305 |
Parties | Albert Wesley FARRIS, Jr. v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Bernard J. Natkin, Lexington, for plaintiff in error.
D. Gardiner Tyler, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for defendant in error.
Before EGGLESTON, C.J., and BUCHANAN, SNEAD, I'ANSON, CARRICO, GORDON and HARRISON, JJ.
I'ANSON, Justice.
Albert Wesley Farris, Jr., defendant, was indicted for rape of his seven-year-old daughter, Vicki Lynn Farris, on November 14, 1961. Farris being without funds to employ counsel of his own choosing, the trial court appointed two attorneys to represent him. Defendant pleaded not guilty on the ground of insanity. A jury found him guilty as charged in the indictment, fixed his punishment at confinement in the State penitentiary for life, and he was sentenced accordingly on February 12, 1963. We entertained defendant's delayed petition for an appeal and granted him a writ of error to the judgment.
Defendant assigns several errors, but we think that the crucial and controlling question presented is: Whether the trial court erred in allowing an expert medical witness to testify on cross-examination as to what the defendant's conduct might be in the future.
The evidence shows that Vicki Lynn Farris was raped on November 14, 1961, and there was testimony from which the jury could conclude that the defendant committed the offense.
Dr. John G. Novak, a psychiatrist called as a witness for the defendant, testified that at the time of the alleged criminal act defendant was suffering from acute brain syndrome, alcoholic intoxication with amnesia that it was highly probable that he had done some things that he had no recollection of doing; and that, as a consequence, it ws highly probable that he did not know the difference between right and wrong at the time the offense was committed.
On cross-examination, the attorney for the Commonwealth asked Dr. Novak the following questions:
Defendant's counsel objected to the question and the trial court, without expressly ruling on the objection, said to the attorney for the Commonwealth, Objection was again made on the ground that what defendant might do in the future was not a proper subject of inquiry.
The trial court, nothing defendant's exception, and having suggested the language of a re-phrased question, allowed Dr. Novak to be asked:
'* * * in the event that the defendant, Albert Wesley Farris, Jr., would, on some subsequent date in the future, indulge in the use of alcohol to the extent that you were advised he did on November 14, 1961, would his condition then be the same as you state his condition to be on November 14, 1961?
Evidence of other acts of an accused, whether criminal or not, both before and after the act for which the accused stands criminally charged, are admissible into evidence when the accused has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity if such prior and subsequent acts are relevant to his mental state at the time the crime was committed. See, 2 Wigmore on Evidence, 3d ed., 1940, §§ 227, 228, pp. 8, 9; 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence, § 353, pp. 402, 403, and the cases there collected. Cf. Nugent v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morva v. Com.
...`fear rather than reason.'" Yarbrough v. Commonwealth, 258 Va. 347, 369, 519 S.E.2d 602, 613 (1999) (quoting Farris v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 305, 307, 163 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1968)); see also Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977) ("vital importance to the ......
-
Yarbrough v. Com.
...in a manner that could influence the jury to assess a penalty based upon "`fear rather than reason.'" Farris v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 305, 307, 163 S.E.2d 575, 576 (1968) (quoting State v. Nickens, 403 S.W.2d 582, 585 (Mo.1966)). Where information about potential post-sentencing procedures ......
-
State v. Victorian
...Defendant's position is not supported by the decision in either State v. Nickens, 403 S.W.2d 582 (Mo.1966) or Farris v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 305, 163 S.E.2d 575 (1968), which cases are also relied upon by defendant here and which were relied upon by the defendant in State v. Lopez, Defenda......
-
State v. Wilson
...v. Miller, 6 N.Y.2d 152, 188 N.Y.S.2d 534, 160 N.E.2d 74 (1959).9 Acres v. Commonwealth, 259 S.W.2d 38 (Ky.1953).10 Farris v. Commonwealth, 209 Va. 305, 163 S.E.2d 575 (1968).11 'All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether it be felony or misdemeanor, and whether they direct......