Gilbert v. State, Nos. 30359
| Decision Date | 21 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | 30360,Nos. 30359 |
| Parties | Joseph GILBERT v. The STATE, two cases. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Eric Welch, Atlanta, for appellant; Joseph Gilbert, pro se.
Lewis R. Slaton, Dist. Atty., Carole E. Wall, Asst. Dist. Atty., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Harrison Kohler, Atlanta, for appellee.
Gilbert appeals from his June 17, 1975, conviction and sixteen-year prison sentence for armed robbery. The evidence was sufficient to show that he committed the armed robbery; the only question on appeal is whether the evidence supports the finding of the trial court that he was sane at the time of the offense.
Gilbert entered a plea of 'not guilty,' which encompasses the defense of 'not guilty by reason of insanity,' and waived a trial by jury. The evidence shows that he was previously indicted for rape, filed a special plea of insanity, and on November 26, 1973, was found to be insane and committed to the Central State Hospital at Milledgeville, 'to remain until discharged in the manner prescribed by law.' He testified that he received shock treatments and medication at the hospital and was released after a few months. At the close of the evidence, the trial court stated,
The trial began with the rebuttable presumption (Code § 26-606) that Gilbert was sane, and this presumption is evidence. Fields v. State, 221 Ga. 307(1), 144 S.E.2d 339. However, once the certified copy of the insanity order of November 26, 1973, was introduced into evidence, a counter presumption was raised under Code § 38-118 because a mental condition once proved to exist is presumed to continue. Boyd v. State, 207 Ga. 567, 569, 63 S.E.2d 394. On the question of conflicting presumptions, the stronger (Code § 38-118) prevails over the weaker (Code § 26-606). 11 EGL 385, Evidence, § 143 (1967). See Handspike v. State, 203 Ga. 115, 45 S.E.2d 662. Either presumption can, of course, be rebutted by evidence of the mental condition of the accused at the time of the offense, or that before and after the offense which tends to show his condition at the time of the offense. Flanagan v. State, 103 Ga. 609(4), 30 S.E. 550. As we wrote in Boyd, explaining Handspike, prior to the adoption of the 1969 Hospitalization of the Mentally Ill Act (Code Ann. Ch. 88-5), this court held that in the absence of a 'subsequent adjudication that he had been restored to sanity' the adjudicated mental condition is presumed to continue. Since 1969, the law (Code Ann. § 88-506.7) provides that the state hospital...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...the mental institution to which the defendant would be sent following such an adjudication under Code Ann. § 27-1502. Gilbert v. State, 235 Ga. 501, 220 S.E.2d 262 (1975). We note that the state assumed the burden of proof at the hearing on appellant's third special plea of insanity. The ju......
-
State v. Gerrier
...v. Stephenson , 165 P.3d 860, 866 (Colo. App. 2007) ; Hargraves v. United States , 62 A.3d 107, 111 (D.C. 2013) ; Gilbert v. State , 235 Ga. 501, 220 S.E.2d 262, 263 (1975) ; People v. Davis , 127 Ill.App.3d 49, 82 Ill.Dec. 110, 468 N.E.2d 172, 174 (1984) ; State v. Hunt , 801 N.W.2d 366, 3......
-
Chancellor v. State
...time of the offense, or that before and after the offense which tends to show his condition at the time of the offense." Gilbert v. State, 235 Ga. 501, 220 S.E.2d 262. "Sanity or insanity is a proper subject for opinion evidence, and where the question under examination, and to be decided b......
-
Durrence v. The State
...begin with the rebuttable presumption that the defendant is sane and this presumption is evidence. OCGA § 16-2-3; Gilbert v. State, 235 Ga. 501, 501-502, 220 S.E.2d 262 (1975). It is also true, however, that our law presumes the continued existence of a mental state once it is proved to exi......