Lac Coarce v. State

• Decision Date: 03 April 1957
• Docket Number: No. A-12410,A-12410
• Citation: 309 P.2d 1113
• Parties: William Ronald LAC COARCE, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

Page 1113

309 P.2d 1113

William Ronald LAC COARCE, Plaintiff in Error, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. A-12410.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

April 3, 1957.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. When defendant presents non-expert witness to substantiate defense of insanity, said witness may testify as to defendant's action, conduct, appearance, etc., and incidents in relation to unsoundness or soundness of mind, and impressions produced thereby upon witness as to whether defendant was rational or irrational--that is, sane or insane.

2. Where the evidence is offered by the defendant in the trial of a criminal cause which in any degree tends to support a defense which, if established, would entitle the defendant to an acquittal, it is error for the trial judge to pass upon the sufficiency of such evidence and exclude it from the jury.

3. Where the defense of insanity in interposed in the prosecution for a crime, and testimony is received tending to support that theory of defense, although testimony may be weak, the duty of weighing the same is for the determination of the jury, and in such case a refusal to submit the question to the jury with proper instructions as to the law governing the same, is error.

Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Fred Daugherty, Judge.

William Ronald LacCoarce was convicted of the crime of taking indecent liberties with a female child under the age of 14 years, and appeals. Reversed and remanded, with instructions to grant the defendant a new trial.

Leonard C. Bowen, Court Pappe, Jr., Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

NIX, Judge.

The testimony as shown by the transcript in said cause reflects that on the 30th day of October, 1955 the defendant induced Glyna Ann Brockhaus, nine year old girl, to go down into a hole where a sewer line was being laid, by promising to give her $1. After the little girl had gone down into the hole with the defendant, he placed one hand upon her shoulder and put the other between her legs, then asked if she would like to make $100. The little girl's brother, who was seven years old, was told by the defendant to stand watch for him. The little girl became frightened and ran out from the hole, and told her brother Pat, age five, that the man was a mean man, at which time the brother Pat ran to his home, which was nearby, and told his mother and daddy.

Don Wayne Brockhaus, brother of Glyna, testified that he was seven years old and was in the first grade and attended Monroe School in Oklahoma City, and lived at 5213 Miller Street. Upon being asked if he understood the meaning of the oath he had taken in order to testify, he said: 'That means you are telling God the whole truth and nothing but the truth'. He testified that the defendant came along on a 'bike' and told him to stand watch, and he did, but the defendant told his sister to go down into the hole and she did, and after that he came down in where his sister was and asked if she would like to have $100, and then she ran out of the hole and some boys came by and 'she told us that the man was a robber'. That the defendant asked the boys for some matches, and then went on up to the store.

Arthur John Brockhaus testified that he was the father of the little girl, and that he was working in the garage the day that his youngest son came to the garage. That he went across the road and saw a fellow by the name of Presser and they drove around the block looking for the defendant. That he found defendant, then called the police. The police arrived and took defendant into custody.

The day following his arrest defendant gave a statement to the officers admitting offering to give the little girl $1 to go down into the hole, which she did, and that he placed his hand between her legs.

The plaintiff in error recites six assignments of error.

After a careful study of the transcript and evidence presented therein, we feel that there is not sufficient merit in the first five contentions of the plaintiff in error to be discussed herein, and for that reason this opinion will deal exclusively with assignment of error number 6, and fundamental error reflected by the record.

It is contended by plaintiff in error in assignment number 6, which is as follows:

'Error of the court in refusing to allow defendant to introduce evidence concerning the sanity of defendant at the time of the alleged commission of said offense';

the trial judge committed error in not permitting witness O. A. Tate to testify as to the mental capacity of defendant at the time of the alleged commission of the offense, or as to whether he was mentally capable of determining right from wrong. In discussing this issue it is considered beneficial to briefly refer to the testimony of the defendant's witnesses in this regard.

The mother of the defendant, Mrs. Iva Perry, testified in substance that during defendant's childhood he sustained three very bad falls, two of which were from the loft of a barn, and that he later fell from the viaduct on Walnut Street, in Oklahoma City. That after these falls his back began to draw and defendant became indifferent in his ways of being quick to learn. That he was taken to University Hospital as a result of said falls, where he was kept for three months with weights, trying to straighten his back and adjust his vertebra, which was shown to be 'crossed'. That they were unable to help him very much. They said they could operate but could not guarantee cure on his spine. That defendant's back, prior to the falls, was perfectly straight. That defendant has lived with her all but five years of his life. That he knows little about reading and writing, and can write his name. That his main work was in ditches.

Levia Myers Smith testified in substance that she had been a resident of Oklahoma City for 25 or 30 years. That she had taught in the Oklahoma City school system, and was principal of the Irving School where defendant had attended when he was about eight years old. He was a student in her school for three and a half or four years. That she had occasion to observe him during that period of time. That when she first knew the defendant he was well adjusted socially and was pleasant. That defendant was brought to her attention because there came a stoppage in his progress. He forgot what he had learned, and his disposition changed. When she first knew him, he initiated and participated in games with the other children. Later, he seemed to retard within himself. He was shy and did not play much with other children. He became a follower, and other children would lead him. This change came about after the injury sustained by defendant as a result of falls. The change was gradual--not over night. His back began to bend. That she had many talks about this with his parents. That it was quite noticeable then, but not as large as was apparent at the time of trial. That defendant developed an inferiority complex.

Mr. O. A. Tate testified in substance that he had been a resident of Oklahoma City for 37 years. That he was building super-intendent of the Globe Life Insurance Building. That he was an uncle of the defendant, had known him since birth, and gave him a job for several months in 1953. That during the time defendant worked for him he would give defendant a job to do, and after a while he would wander off. If witness scolded defendant, it would hurt his feelings. That he would have to handle him easy and keep his mind employed because he would not stay with the job he was doing. That he would burn up good lumber. That he would play with tar, and on one occasion came near blowing up a man by not knowing what he was doing. That he did not act like he knew what he did. That witness had opportunity to observe defendant during and after employment. The witness was asked by the defense attorney if he could express an opinion as to the ability of the defendant to understand the difference between right and wrong. Objection was made by the State, and sustained by the trial judge on grounds calling for an opinion and conclusion. At this stage of the testimony, the court refused to permit witness to express his opinion as to whether or not defendant was able to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the alleged crime. Several efforts were made by defense attorneys to interrogate the witness relative to this matter. The court consistently sustained objections thereto, at which time the attorneys for defendant dictated into the record the following statement, outside the hearing of the jury:

'Comes now the defendant, and offers to prove by the witness, O. A. Tate, that said witness has had opportunity to observe the defendant for the past three years, has personal knowledge touching upon the competency of the defendant and the ability and understanding of said defendant to ascertain right from wrong in his ordinary employment and business conduct, and based upon such experience that it is the opinion of the witness that the said defendant was incapable of ascertaining and distinguishing right from wrong in the commission of any acts, if any were committed which defendant specifically denies, alleged to have been committed on the 30th day of October, 1955.'

The State objected to the offer of such proof. The court sustained said objection on the ground that Tate was a non-expert witness with reference to the mental condition of the defendant, and that the court was unable to find any evidence supplied by the...