Marcey v. Harris
| Decision Date | 20 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 22026.,22026. |
| Parties | Paul W. MARCEY, Appellant, v. David W. HARRIS, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Mr. Albert J. Ahern, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Frank Q. Nebeker, Asst. U. S. Atty., for appellee. Mr. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty., also entered an appearance for appellee.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT and LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judges.
Appellant was indicted for the first degree murder of his wife and released on bail. On January 12, 1968, he filed a motion for a bifurcated trial in order to permit a separate trial of the issue of his insanity at the time of the offense. Several months thereafter the Government filed a motion for a mental examination, pursuant to D.C.Code § 24-301(a), on the ground that appellant's request for a bifurcated trial indicated he might be incompetent to stand trial. Appellant opposed this motion, but at the same time complied with the new requirements of D.C.Code § 24-301(j)1 by filing notice that he would raise insanity as a defense at trial.
At the hearing on the Government's motion, appellant argued that the Government had offered no "prima facie evidence" of his mental incompetency so as to justify the utilization of § 301(a).2 However, appellant again made clear that he would raise the insanity defense at trial, stating that two psychiatrists were prepared to testify on his behalf. The court committed appellant to Saint Elizabeths Hospital to determine whether he was competent to stand trial and whether the alleged offense was a product of mental illness.
Appellant next filed a writ of habeas corpus, again arguing that § 301(a) was inapplicable because there was no prima facie evidence that he was mentally incompetent. The district court discharged the writ and this appeal followed.
We cannot accept appellant's contention that, on the particular facts of this case, there was insufficient evidence of incompetency to authorize the trial court to employ § 301(a). Appellant himself raised doubts about his sanity at the time of the offense by demanding a bifurcated trial, filing notice of an insanity defense, and stating that he had two psychiatrists prepared to testify at trial. Since the offense was committed less than a year before the hearing, the court could reasonably entertain doubts about appellant's competency to stand trial. We believe therefore that the court was justified in invoking § 301(a). We need not decide whether § 301(a) would also apply if a defendant did nothing more than fulfill the notice requirements of § 301(j) or if the period between the offense and the hearing were longer.
At oral argument appellant contended for the first time that even if commitment pursuant to § 301(a) were authorized, it should take the form of outpatient rather than inpatient examinations. He asserted that inpatient commitment would violate his right to pre-trial bail under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3146 et seq. We agree that pre-trial commitment under § 301(a) is only for purposes of pre-trial mental examination and is not a ground for denial of bail otherwise contemplated by the Bail Reform Act.3 We therefore hold that if a defendant so requests, his commitment shall be limited to examination on an outpatient basis. However, inpatient commitment shall be ordered if the court is advised by a report of the hospital authorities, setting forth...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Weston, CR. A. 98-357(EGS).
...conduct an evidentiary hearing to decide whether the determination should be made on an inpatient or outpatient basis); Marcey v. Harris, 400 F.2d 772, 774 (D.C.Cir.1968)(remanding to the trial court for a determination based upon a report of the hospital authorities of whether inpatient co......
-
United States v. Marcey
...committing him to Saint Elizabeths Hospital for a mental examination to determine his competence to stand trial. Marcey v. Harris, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 301, 400 F.2d 772 (1968). 2 United States v. Gay, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 337, 340, 410 F.2d 1036, 1039-1040 (1969); Harper v. United States, 99 U.S. ......
-
Newchurch, In re
...1985).21 Fed.R.Evid. 704(b).22 S.Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 2d Sess. 235, reprinted in 1984 U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 3417.23 400 F.2d 772 (D.C.Cir.1968) (per curiam).24 Id. at 774.25 Cf. United States v. Varner, 467 F.2d 659, 661 (5th Cir.1972) (per curiam); Featherston v. Mitchell, 418 F.2d......
-
State v. Blanford
...been decided in Iowa. It seems to have had little consideration elsewhere, either. The only case authority found is Marcey v. Harris, 400 F.2d 772, 774 (D.C.C.A.1968), where the court said a defendant released on bail (as was defendant in the present case) should not be required to submit t......