Kelley v. United States, 12025.
Decision Date | 24 November 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 12025.,12025. |
Parties | Stephen S. KELLEY, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Bennett Boskey, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this Court), for appellant.
Mr. Lewis Carroll, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and Edward P. Troxell and Gerard J. O'Brien, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee. Mr. Harold H. Greene, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before EDGERTON, WILBUR K. MILLER and FAHY, Circuit Judges.
February 13, 1953, the Superintendent of St. Elizabeths Hospital certified that under commitment from the District Court Kelley had been received there for treatment October 7, 1952, had recovered his reason, was of sound mind and had been discharged February 13, 1953.
Eight months later, October 12, 1953, the case was called for trial. Kelley's counsel then asked the court, presided over by another judge, to order a re-examination. He stated that the accused was at one time committed to St. Elizabeths and that he had talked to him that morning for about twenty minutes and felt he was not prepared to go to trial. The court said he could hardly grant the motion on counsel's own impressions. This indicated a misunderstanding, for counsel's statement had referred also to Kelley's commitment to St. Elizabeths. Counsel again referred to the record from St. Elizabeths, which he said at the time of Kelley's discharge was not conclusive, and to the prior examination of two doctors "who will testify even now that the man is insane". The court denied the motion and the case went to trial. This appeal is from the judgment on the conviction which followed.
If the report of the psychiatrist indicates a state of present insanity or mental incompetency the court shall hold a hearing at which evidence as to the mental condition of the accused may be submitted and the court shall make a finding, followed if need be by the commitment authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 4246, n. 2, supra.
This court has twice held that under these provisions a motion such as made in this case must be granted. Perry v. United States, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 186, 195 F.2d 37,4 decided January 31, 1952, and Wear v. United States, ___ U.S.App. D.C. ___, 218 F.2d 24, decided July 22, 1954. Furthermore, in another case, Gunther v. United States, ___ U.S.App. D.C. ___, 215 F.2d 493, decided July 1, 1954, this court held also that even in the absence of such a motion a judicial determination of mental competency to stand trial is required when, in circumstances like those in the case at bar, there has been an earlier judicial determination of incompetency and no subsequent judicial determination of competency. The present motion had back of it not only an earlier finding of incompetency but counsel's representation that the two psychiatrists who had served in the earlier proceedings on court appointment would testify to Kelley's present incompetency. If such a well-founded motion does not bring the statutory procedure into operation the purpose of Congress obviously is frustrated. It was error for the court to deny the motion.5
In its brief the Government concedes that the principles enunciated in Gunther v. United States, supra, were violated.6 It contends, however, that this requires only that the case be remanded to the District Court for the purpose of determining now whether Kelley was competent to go to trial in October, 1953. It is said that final disposition of the appeal should be stayed pending such determination. But the error as we have pointed out is the same as that which occurred in Perry and Wear, where, at the outset of the trial, a motion was made for judicial determination of competency to stand trial, and was erroneously denied. Such a motion was not made in Gunther. In both Perry and Wear we reversed and remanded for a new trial, with opportunity for pre-trial determination of the mental competency of the accused. The sequence laid down by Congress as the appropriate means of avoiding the trial of one who is unable to understand the proceedings and to assist in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Ives, 73-1726
...determination. Gunther and its progeny, Contee v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 297, 215 F.2d 324 (1954) and Kelley v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 267, 221 F.2d 822 (1954), have received mixed reactions even in their own circuit 23 and have been questioned 24 and distinguished 25 by oth......
-
United States v. Taylor, 13937.
...419 F.2d 393 (4th Cir. 1969); Wider v. United States, 121 U.S. App.D.C. 129, 348 F.2d 358, 361 (1965); Kelley v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 267, 221 F.2d 822, 825 (D.C.Cir. 1954). 4 Memorandum for the United States, p. 16. Dusky v. United States, quoted in Sullivan v. United States, 205......
-
Sibug v. State
...a hearing, of the accused's incompetency to stand trial" and "in this case there was no prior adjudication of incompetency." Id. at 817.24 221 F.2d 822 (D.C Cir.1954).25 222 F.2d 398 (D.C.Cir.1955).26 244 F.2d 355 (D.C.Cir.1957).27 In cases that held to the contrary before Pate, the statuto......
-
State v. Pugh
...an earlier judicial determination of incompetency and no subsequent judicial determination of competency. Kelley v. United States, 95 U.S.App.D.C. 267, 221 F.2d 822, 824 (1954); Gunther v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 243, 215 F.2d 493, 496 (1954); Contee v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C.......