Haynes v. State
| Decision Date | 25 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 17246,17246 |
| Citation | 103 Nev. 309,739 P.2d 497 |
| Parties | Eddie Lee HAYNES, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Morgan D. Harris, Public Defender, Terrence M. Jackson, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Brian McKay, Atty. Gen., Carson City, Rex Bell, Dist. Atty., James Tufteland, Deputy Dist. Atty., Las Vegas, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a conviction of first degree murder and imposition of the death penalty. We reject Haynes's claims of error during the guilt phase and affirm the conviction. For reasons to be stated, we annul the death penalty and substitute the sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
To understand why we cannot allow the death penalty to be imposed, a rather detailed account of circumstances surrounding the homicide is provided.
On June 4, 1985, Eddie Lee Haynes walked up behind Robert Ross, who was washing a car, and hit him on the head twice with an iron pipe. Ross died from the head injuries. Haynes thought Ross was a member of a group that had earlier peered over a wall at him and taunted him for masturbating behind some bushes. Three individuals saw Haynes strike Ross. Haynes was chased down a railway track into the local Teamsters' building. Haynes was trapped in that building until the police arrived and arrested him.
The arresting officer found Haynes in the bathroom where he was washing his face and hands. A scuffle occurred before the arresting officer was able to handcuff Haynes.
After being read his Miranda rights, Haynes said "yes" when asked if he understood those rights. Haynes identified himself, and when asked if he was the one who hit a man with a pipe, Haynes said "yes" and "that's just the beginning." Haynes was laughing when he made these statements. Haynes stated at the time that he was going to kill anybody who "messed" with him. He continually talked of killing and called for Lucifer to help him.
Because Haynes received a cut on his head from a rock thrown by one of his pursuers, paramedics arrived at the scene of the arrest to treat him. When asked by a paramedic if he took drugs, Haynes replied that he took anything and everything he could get his hands on. At the scene of arrest, Haynes was described by the paramedics as being very agitated and belligerent. He was unsure as to why the paramedics were there, and he thought they were there to hurt him. He refused to tell the paramedics his past medical history. He complained that "people had been messin' with him." His pupils were dilated but responsive; his speech was slightly slurred. He did not like to be touched in any way. He looked straight at one paramedic and said: "I will kill you if you mess with me."
While being transported to the hospital, Haynes talked of Hell. He mumbled incoherently. He stated that he would "kill anybody who got in his way" and that he would "hunt down and kill them." He remarked that everyone wanted to hurt him.
At the hospital, while being transported from a gurney to a bed, Haynes threatened that he would "kill any motherf----- that messed with him." Haynes was taken to a private, curtained-off room because he was screaming and was boisterous. In the private, curtained-off room, the arresting officer heard Haynes holler, several times, "Oh, God, I killed somebody" and "I got so much more to do." When the officer looked inside the curtained area, Haynes was masturbating while saying those phrases. Haynes continued to masturbate, looked at the officer, and smiled.
During the entire time Haynes was in the hospital, he rambled and talked about things that made no sense. At the hospital, Haynes continually employed "satanic type phrases" and referred to Lucifer. Blood and urine samples taken from Haynes revealed that he was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Haynes was given Haldol, an antipsychotic medicine.
An officer testified at the preliminary hearing that while being transported from the hospital to the jail Haynes "acted erratically or said bizarre things," Haynes talked of killing someone (anyone), and Haynes said he was tired of being "messed with."
During the months prior to the homicide, Haynes had been arrested several times. On February 23, 1985, Haynes was arrested for masturbating while completely naked on the lawn of the law library in downtown Las Vegas. On February 26, 1985, Haynes was arrested for throwing rocks toward the street; one rock cracked the windshield of a car. On March 16, 1985, Haynes was arrested for disorderly conduct wherein he challenged a highway patrolman to shoot him. On April 15, 1985, Haynes was arrested for refusing to leave the steps of an apartment complex. He was found sitting on those steps mumbling about God and singing. Haynes threatened to poke out the eyes of the apartment manager's dog and threatened to hurt the persons who asked him to leave. When arrested, Haynes rocked the patrol car and threatened to "kill everybody."
On May 21, 1985, a little over two weeks before this killing, Haynes was arrested for open and gross lewdness when he was observed masturbating on a sidewalk near heavy vehicle traffic. At that time, Haynes was examined by Dr. Ivan Aralica, a board certified psychiatrist employed by the State of Nevada to examine inmates in the Clark County Jail. Dr. Aralica observed that Haynes was in a catatonic state and noted that Haynes had "marked decrease in motor behavior" but recognized that the doctor was present. At that time Dr. Aralica determined that Haynes was psychotic and prescribed Haldol.
Eight days after the homicide, on June 12, Dr. Aralica again examined Haynes and doubled the dose of Haldol. On June 19, Dr. Aralica observed that Haynes was less catatonic and less psychotic; he diagnosed Haynes as having a chronic psychotic illness, schizophrenic disorder. On August 6, Dr. Aralica observed Haynes to be catatonic, markedly psychotic and paranoid. On September 5, Dr. Aralica observed that Haynes was withdrawn and in a daze. On September 17, Dr. Aralica observed that Haynes was friendly, loud and disruptive, and that his psychosis was not well controlled.
When asked at trial if he had an opinion of whether Haynes was psychotic on June 4, when the homicide occurred, Dr. Aralica stated that he "never inquired about that" but that his educated guess was that he was "most likely psychotic."
Dr. Aralica testified that symptoms of schizophrenia include persecutorial delusions, ideas which shift from one subject to another with no rational connection, incomprehensible and incoherent speech, a dislike of being touched, "inappropriate affects" such as laughing when admitting killing a person, social withdrawal and preoccupation with himself, and dilated pupils. Dr. Aralica testified in connection with his examination of Haynes that schizophrenics rarely accept the fact that they are schizophrenic or victims of a mental disease.
Haynes has a history of intermittent admissions to mental hospitals in Mississippi, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Florida between February 1982 and December 7, 1984. 1 Dr. Aralica was first able to review the medical records from Illinois and Mississippi at trial; he testified that those records strengthened his opinion that Haynes suffered from paranoid type schizophrenia.
A corrections officer at the jail, James Evans, testified that Haynes's behavior improved with medication. When Evans first saw Haynes in June 1985, Haynes was hostile and unable to communicate.
Dr. William O'Gorman, a psychiatrist originally hired by the defense to determine Haynes's legal sanity at the time of the killing and his competency to stand trial, testified for the prosecution that Haynes knew right from wrong at the time of the killing and knew the nature and quality of his actions. Dr. O'Gorman examined Haynes on three occasions in October for periods totaling less than three hours. Dr. O'Gorman disagreed with the diagnosis of schizophrenia; rather, he diagnosed Haynes as schizoid and antisocial. Dr. O'Gorman testified that Haynes "wanted to get off the street" and that the real reason for his behavior was drug abuse.
At the penalty hearing the jury returned a special verdict finding the aggravating circumstance of "conviction of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to the person of another," namely, a robbery committed by Haynes in 1970, when he was eighteen years old. For evidence of mitigating circumstances, the defense called Dr. Myerson, a clinical psychologist, and Dr. O'Gorman, the state's witness at trial. The jury imposed the death penalty.
First we shall address the validity of the conviction at the guilt phase.
There can be very little doubt that Haynes suffered from a "defect of reason, from disease of the mind," 2 namely, the "chronic psychotic illness ... schizophrenic disorder" described by Dr. Aralica. Haynes's defense counsel, however, did not call an expert or lay witness to render an opinion that, under the M'Naghten rule adopted in this state, 3 Haynes did not know, at the time of committing the act, the nature and quality of the act or if he did know it he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.
On this state of the record it is difficult to see how a jury could have come to the conclusion that Haynes had presented a viable insanity defense, particularly in light of the fact that the state presented a categorical and uncontradicted opinion by its expert, Dr. William O'Gorman, that Haynes knew right from wrong at the time of the killing and knew the nature and quality of his acts.
There is no question about Haynes's having struck the death-dealing blows and, absent any real prime facie showing of the defense of insanity, the sole defense, insanity, collapses.
Haynes makes five assertions of error which warrant discussion but which do not alter the propriety of the conviction.
First, Haynes asserts that the district court erred by denying...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. District Court of Eleventh Judicial Dist.
...defendant's sanity, the opinion of a medical expert who was retained by the defense as a potential witness); see also Haynes v. State, 103 Nev. 309, 739 P.2d 497 (1987); State v. Craney, 347 N.W.2d 668 (Iowa), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 884, 105 S.Ct. 255, 83 L.Ed.2d 192 (1984); State v. Carter......
-
Leonard v. State
...of convicted first-degree murderers.' " Chambers v. State, 113 Nev. 974, 985, 944 P.2d 805, 812 (1997) (quoting Haynes v. State, 103 Nev. 309, 319-20, 739 P.2d 497, 504 (1987), and Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 296, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976)). Appellant notes that the ......
-
Depasquale v. Mcdaniel
...the Fifth Amendment. Buchanan v. Kentucky, 483 U.S. 402, 107, S.Ct. 2906, 97 L.Ed.2d 336 (1987); see also Haynes v. State, 103 Nev. 309, 318, 739, P.2d 497, 503 (1987) (statement is not "incriminatory" merely because it tends to show that the defendant is sane). Thus, it is questionable whe......
-
Belcher v. State
...there was no advance planning, and there was an emotional confrontation between the defendant and the victim); Haynes v. State , 103 Nev. 309, 318-19, 739 P.2d 497, 503 (1987) (death sentence excessive where murder was the result of uncontrollable, irrational, or delusional impulses). This ......