Lewis v. State

• Citation: 709 P.2d 1278
• Decision Date: 02 December 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-124,84-124
• Parties: Clifford A. LEWIS, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming

Page 1278

709 P.2d 1278

Clifford A. LEWIS, Appellant (Defendant), v. The STATE of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. 84-124.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

Dec. 2, 1985.

Leonard D. Munker, State Public Defender, Martin J. McClain, Appellate Counsel, Cheyenne, and Vincent P. Foley, Student Intern, Wyoming Defender Aid Program, Laramie, for appellant.

A.G. McClintock, Atty. Gen., Gerald A. Stack, Deputy Atty. Gen., Allen C. Johnson, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., and Patrick J. Crank, Legal Intern, for appellee.

Before THOMAS, ^* C.J., ROONEY, ^** BROWN and CARDINE, JJ., and HARTMAN, ^*** District Judge.

ROONEY, ¹ Justice.

Appellant was charged with the crimes of aggravated burglary, in violation of § 6-7-201(a)(i) and (b)(ii), W.S.1977 ², and first degree arson, in violation of § 6-7-101, W.S.1977 ³. He pled not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency. After a jury trial, he was found guilty on both counts.

Appellant words the issues on appeal as follows:

"1. Whether the state legislature may amend the statutes governing defenses to criminal acts based on mental illness, and thereby curtailing the variety of illnesses applicable, placing the entire burden of proof and persuasion upon the accused, and then applying such amended statutes to criminal acts completed prior to the effective date of the amendments.

"2. Whether a state legislature, within due process restrictions, may amend statutes controlling the substantive rights of defendants claiming mental disorders as a defense to the capacity to form the essential element of criminal intent, place the entire burden of proof and persuasion upon the defendant to prove his lack of capacity, and explicitly eliminate the requirement that the State prove capacity beyond a reasonable doubt."

These issues were premised upon the fact that the jury was instructed as to the plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency under §§ 7-11-304(a) and 7-11-305(b), as they were amended subsequent to the incidents in question rather than under the statutes before amendment and as they were in effect at the time of the incidents in question.

We reverse and remand.

Appellant and Mrs. Sylvia Lewis were divorced on May 23, 1983. Subsequently, Mrs. Lewis began living with Mr. Dan Marlin in Gillette. Appellant was not happy with this relationship, and began following Mrs. Lewis around town. On the evening of June 6, 1983, appellant entered the Marlin-Lewis trailer house, burglarized the house, poured gasoline in various locations therein, and set the trailer house on fire. The fire destroyed the trailer house and everything left inside. Appellant later admitted to Mrs. Lewis that he had stolen certain items from her and set fire to the trailer. Appellant was charged by criminal complaint on November 14, 1983, convicted on April 11, 1984, and sentenced on April 24, 1984.

The relevant statutes on mental illness in effect at the time of the commission of the crime ⁴ read as follows:

Section 7-11-304(a):

"(a) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of the criminal conduct, as a result of mental illness or deficiency, he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law."

Section 7-11-305(b):

"(b) The prosecution shall prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense charged and the mental responsibility of the defendant. However, every defendant is presumed to be mentally responsible and the burden of first going forward and entering evidence on the issue of mental responsibility is upon the defendant."

These statutes were amended in 1983 to be effective on July 1, 1983. The following was added to § 7-11-304(a):

"As used in this section, the terms mental illness or deficiency mean only those severely abnormal mental conditions that grossly and demonstrably impair a person's perception or understanding of reality and that are not attributable primarily to self-induced intoxication as defined by W.S. 6-1-202(c) [§ 6-1-202(b) ]."

Section 7-11-305(b) was changed to read:

"(b) The prosecution shall prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense charged. Every defendant is presumed to be mentally responsible. The defendant shall have the burden of going forward and proving by the greater weight of evidence that, as a result of mental illness or deficiency, he lacked capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law."

The jury instruction was obviously given under the amended statute:

"INSTRUCTION NO. 15

"The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency. Every person is presumed to be mentally responsible. To overcome that presumption, the defendant must prove to your satisfaction that the following (1 & 2) are more likely true than not true:

"1. At the time of the criminal acts alleged, the defendant lacked substantial capacity, EITHER

"a. to appreciate the wrongfulness of the acts, OR

"b. to conform his conduct to the requirements of law;

"AND

"2. That the defendant's lack of substantial capacity was due to a mental illness or deficiency.

"Mental illness or deficiency means only those severely abnormal mental conditions that grossly and demonstrably impair a person's perception or understanding of reality.

"In deciding the issue of mental responsibility, you should consider all of the evidence presented on that issue whether presented by the State or by the defendant.

"If you conclude it is more likely that the defendant was not mentally responsible at the time of the alleged criminal acts then you should find him not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency. If you find he was mentally responsible at the time then you should consider whether the State has proved all of the elements of the offense(s) beyond a reasonable doubt."

These provisions relative to the insanity plea are found in Ch. 179, Session Laws of Wyoming, 1983. With respect to effective dates, that chapter provides the following:

"Section 2. This act is effective July 1, 1983 and applies to individuals against whom a criminal complaint is filed on or after July 1, 1983. Criminal complaints filed prior to July 1, 1983 shall be governed by the laws in effect prior to July 1, 1983."

Appellant argues that applying the amendments to the insanity defense to acts completed prior to the effective date of the statute violates his right to be protected from ex post facto legislation, inasmuch as the amendments change the definition and nature of the defense as well as shift the burden of persuasion.

"Art. 1, § 10, United States Constitution, provides no state shall pass any ex post facto law; and Art. 1, § 35, Wyoming Constitution, provides no ex post facto law shall ever be made. An ex post facto law may be one which alters the situation of an accused to his disadvantage. In the early case of In re Wright, 3 Wyo. 478, 27 P. 565, 566, recognition was given to the principle that an ex post facto law may be one which, 'in relation to the offense or its consequences, alters the situation of a party to his disadvantage.'

"The real question is whether the person accused has been deprived of a substantial right by reason of the change in law. See Kring v. Missouri, 107 U.S. 221, 2 S.Ct. 443, 27 L.Ed. 506, 510; and People v. Edenburg, 88 Cal.App. 558, 263 P. 857, 860. Or, as stated in People ex rel. Lonschein v. Warden, Queens House of Deten. for Men, 43 Misc.2d 109, 250 N.Y.S.2d 15, 19, the constitutional interdiction of ex post facto laws reaches out to every law which deprives the accused of any substantial right or immunity possessed by him at the time when he is said to have committed the offense charged." (Footnotes omitted.) In re Jones, Wyo., 500 P.2d 690, 692 (1972). ⁵

The State contends that the statutes in question are not ex post facto because appellant failed to present any credible evidence of his insanity at the time he committed the acts in question, and thus an insanity instruction need not even have been given.

Rule 7.04, W.R.A.P., provides that:

"Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded."

In Spilman v. State, Wyo., 633 P.2d 183, 185 (1981), we said:

"This has been read to mean that an error must be injurious or prejudicial to warrant reversal. * * * "

The testimony was not contradictory in that appellant had the ability to distinguish right from wrong. Appellant's psychiatric witness so testified. However, this witness did contradict the other expert witnesses in testifying that appellant could not resist his impulses at the time of the incidents, i.e., that "he could not conform his conduct to the requirements of the law." Under the original statute, lack of substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law as a result of mental illness or deficiency was sufficient to relieve a person of responsibility for criminal conduct.

Under a proper instruction and for the purpose of determining the sufficiency of the evidence for conviction, we would disregard the contradictory evidence of appellant's witness and consider only the evidence of the successful party. On appeal, we assume the evidence in favor of the successful party to be true, disregarding entirely the evidence of the unsuccessful party in conflict therewith, and give to the evidence of the successful party every favorable inference which may be reasonably and fairly drawn from it. Pine Creek Canal No. 1 v. Stadler, Wyo., 685 P.2d 13, 17-18 (1984); Anderson v. Bauer, Wyo., 681 P.2d 1316, 1319 (1984).

However, in this case the alleged error is in Instruction No. 15, and the question is whether or not appellant was prejudiced by it having been given rather than an instruction under the original statute. More specifically, did the State have a lesser burden of proof under the instruction than it...