Hockenberry v. State
| Decision Date | 11 January 1945 |
| Docket Number | 6 Div. 259. |
| Citation | 20 So.2d 533,246 Ala. 369 |
| Parties | HOCKENBERRY v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Feb. 1, 1945.
Frank Ball and Edw. A. Ling, both of Bessemer, for appellant.
Wm N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and John O. Harris, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appeal is from a judgment of conviction for the offense of rape, with the imposition of the death penalty. Defendant's companion in crime was Daniel F. Reedy. These two acted jointly in all that was done, the necessary details of which are outlined in the case of Reedy v. State, 20 So.2d 528. They were separately indicted; but in open court, as appears upon the minutes, this defendant, in his own proper person and by counsel, requested that he be tried jointly with the defendant Reedy. The request was granted and the two were jointly tried, with, however, separate verdicts entered in each case and separate appeals prosecuted to this Court. The records in the two cases are identical.
The proof as to the offense of rape, with all its revolting details, was without dispute. The defense as to each defendant was rested upon the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. The proof offered to support the insanity plea as to this defendant varied somewhat from that offered in behalf of defendant Reedy, but to no marked degree. As to this defendant, his mother testified in his behalf. Her evidence discloses that at defendant's birth he was a normal child, and so remained until he reached the age of fourteen. When he was that age, the mother and father separated. She insists that after that age he was depressive, impulsive sneaky at times, and some different from other boys. Upon separation of the parents, the defendant lived with his mother until 1942, in which year he was convicted of an attempted assault upon some unnamed woman, for which he served a year's imprisonment. After this, he lived with his father a while, got a job, but didn't work very long. Then he again got into trouble of the same nature for which he had previously been imprisoned, and for this latter offense the court sent him to the Gallinger Municipal Hospital in Washington, D. C. There he remained in the psychopathic ward for some eight months, when he and Reedy effected their escape, as noted in the Reedy case.
The mother thought that he was abnormal and of unsound mind. There is in the proof no indication of any hereditary trace of mental disorder. As to the two expert witnesses whose depositions were taken in behalf of this defendant, there appears some difference of opinion. Dr. Gilbert is the Chief Psychiatrist at the Gallinger Municipal Hospital, and has so served since October 1, 1933. He has general supervision and direction over the Psychiatric Department of the hospital. He was acquainted with this defendant, whose examination was a part of his official duties. He states defendant was admitted June 11, 1943, and escaped February 1, 1944. His admission was for mental observation. In answer to the inquiry, if at the time of his escape this defendant appeared to be suffering from mental disorders, Dr. Gilbert answered: 'The disorder of personality that it was believed Joseph Hockenberry was suffering from was not of such nature as to cause him to be considered of unsound mind.' In answer to another inquiry, he further stated: 'It is my opinion that during the period that Joseph Hockenberry was confined in the Psychiatric Department of Gallinger Municipal Hospital that he in a general way had the mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong as applied to rape and similar criminal offenses.'
Dr Gilbert was then asked as to whether or not, in his opinion, defendant, although knowing right from wrong, had so far lost the power to choose between right and wrong, and to avoid doing such an act, as that his free agency was at the time of the commission of the offense destroyed. He replied: 'Not under all circumstances, and then his ability to choose between right and wrong was impaired only to a limited degree.' Asked...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cunningham v. State
...testimony "in toto" and even if undisputed. Breen v. State, 53 Ala.App. 588, 595, 302 So.2d 562 (1974). See also, Hockenberry v. State, 246 Ala. 369, 371, 20 So.2d 533 (1945); George v. State, 240 Ala. 632, 637, 200 So. 602 (1941); Parrish v. State, 139 Ala. 16, 44, 36 So. 1012 (1903). "The......
-
Ellis v. State
...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 te......
-
Flenory v. State
...but are to be weighed like other evidence and the jury may reject all expert testimony, though it is without conflict. Hockenberry v. State, 246 Ala. 369, 20 So.2d 533; George v. State, 240 Ala. 632, 200 So. 602. The jury may treat the testimony of experts as it deems best in connection wit......
-
Hamilton v. State
...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 te......