McBride v. State

• Decision Date: 27 February 1986
• Docket Number: No. 13-84-363-CR,13-84-363-CR
• Citation: 706 S.W.2d 723
• Parties: William B. McBRIDE, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 723

706 S.W.2d 723

William B. McBRIDE, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 13-84-363-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas,

Corpus Christi.

Feb. 27, 1986.

Roy Hudspeth, Portland, for appellant.

Thomas L. Bridges, Dist. Atty., Sinton, for appellee.

Before BENAVIDES, UTTER and SEERDEN, JJ.

OPINION

BENAVIDES, Justice.

On September 20, 1984, William B. McBride was found guilty of murder and sentenced to 99 years imprisonment in the Texas Department of Corrections. We affirm that conviction.

Appellant brings nine grounds of error on appeal. In his first three grounds, appellant contends that the State failed to prove appellant sane at the time of the offense, claiming that (1) the trial court erred in failing to grant the defendant's motion for verdict (sic) and offered no evidence as to the sanity of the accused; (2) the jury finding that the appellant was sane was contrary to the overwhelming weight and preponderance of testimony; and, (3) there is no evidence that the defendant was sane at the time of the offense.

Appellant suggests in his brief that because the facts of this case seem "somewhat bizarre," showing no motive for the accused's conduct, he should be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

It is well-established that a jury may accept or reject in whole or in part the opinion testimony of physicians, and they may accept lay testimony over that of experts. Muro v. Houston Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 329 S.W.2d 326 (Tex.Civ.App.--San Antonio 1959, writ ref'd n.r.e.). It is not necessary for the State to present expert medical testimony that a defendant is sane in order to counter defense expert witnesses. If the affirmative defense of insanity is raised by credible evidence, the courts of appeal must review the affirmative defense evidence in the light most favorable to the implicit finding by the jury and then determine, by examining all the evidence, if any rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant failed to prove his defense by a preponderance of the evidence. This review is called for when the defendant is contesting the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction by asserting that he adequately proved his affirmative defense. Van Guilder v. State, 709 S.W.2d 178 (Tex.Crim.App., 1985), citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 2.04(d) (Vernon 1974).

Here, within the cross-examination of appellant's own witnesses, the State was able to negate appellant's defense. In this case, no physician, psychiatrist or psychologist who had ever been appellant's treating physician was called to testify as to his mental condition. Instead, a psychologist (Dr. Keenan) and a psychiatrist (Dr. Kutnick), both of whom had met with the appellant on one brief occasion, for a few hours, within a month of the trial, were called upon to testify.

Dr. Keenan spent a total of 3 1/2 hours with appellant, and felt that in that time period he had acquired a good grasp of appellant's personality and character. Keenan admitted that he relied on other information (i.e., hospital records from 1971-1982; a series of police reports) to find that the appellant was suffering from a paranoid schizophrenic disorder. Keenan testified that appellant exhibited the characteristics of a schizophrenic disorder: his chain of thought wasn't organized; he complained about the conditions in the jail; he had his Bible and would refer to it; and he wanted the doctor to take a letter to President Reagan for him. Keenan testified that appellant's jealousy of his wife evidenced his paranoid condition, that he did not know right from wrong and was insane on the day of the crime.

On cross-examination, Keenan admitted he had received his information from appellant's attorney, and that most of his work was done with juveniles. Keenan observed that each time the appellant had been in trouble with the police, he had sought mental assistance and that appellant's IQ is 120, whereas the average is 95-110. It would not surprise the doctor if appellant was able to conform his behavior to the requirements of the jail rules, and Keenan admitted that appellant was good at hiding his illness.

Dr. Kutnick was asked to determine appellant's competency to stand trial and insanity at the time of the offense. In his opinion, appellant was competent to stand trial but was insane at the time of the shooting. Kutnick testified that appellant understood everything about why he was arrested and his right to an attorney, and told Kutnick the circumstances of his arrest. He realized his actions were crazy; he could look back and see when he was crazy. The main thing bothering Kutnick is that appellant told him two different versions of what occurred at the scene of the crime. On cross-examination, Kutnick testified that all psychiatrists can be fooled; he stated that psychiatry is not an exact science, and that you cannot prove anything. He stated that, "in other words, how do you know a person is hallucinating only because they tell you," and "if a person gives you a false history then you're led astray." Both doctors admitted they could make mistakes in case studies.

The only rebuttal evidence offered by the State was a videotape of the appellant; that evidence was not offered through police reports or as a result of a few hours diagnosis, but displayed the demeanor of appellant firsthand. In his videotape testimony, appellant said that if he shot anything it was a snake. He recounted the events of the day of the shooting and specifically denied shooting anyone and demanded to see his accusers.

The following excerpt from the testimony of Dr. Kutnick is relevant:

Q In your opinion, was Mr. McBride malingering when he talked to you? Was he trying to pull your leg?

A No. I know it's awfully hard to prove one way or the other, I think, in terms of description ..., the only thing that didn't fit is his not remembering about God commanding him to shoot this individual because he was the Devil's disciple. My experience is that people with schizoaffective (sic) disorder do remember those bizarre thoughts, and I don't have any explanation as to why he denied saying that or didn't remember saying that.

Q And the report--in the reports you read, he told everybody that he was the Devil's disciple. Then when he came to see you in person, he told you that the man in the car, or the boy in the car, glanced at him in a strange way and he felt threatened and shot him for that reason; is that right?

A That's correct.

Q What if, assuming that you learned of yet a third version, assuming you learned of a version that on June 21, 1984, the Defendant was able to relate every thing that happened to him on that day of June 18, 1984, but selectively forgot the entire incident at Edroy. Let's assume that you had the third version from the Defendant. Two troubles you. If you had three, would you change your opinion?

A You've always got to think of this possibility. First of all, psychiatrists can be fooled. We don't have any laboratory tests, x-rays, to kind of confirm our opinion, you know. There's the possibility that he's mentally ill. I think he's a fairly sharp individual, but he has been legitimately ill in the past, knows about mental illness because he can learn. He gets into trouble and says, "Okay. I can figure out a way. I've been crazy in the past and I know what to say to kind of make myself look crazy." That's always a possibility that can't be discounted.

It was appellant's own testimony (as recorded on videotape) that he knew the difference between right and wrong and it was the jury's position to decide who and what they would believe about appellant's sanity at the time of the offense.

Under the law in Texas, the test of criminal responsibility is not whether the accused is mentally ill or of unsound mind, but whether he is laboring under such defect of reason that he is unable to distinguish right from wrong, or to know the nature and consequences of his act. TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. § 8.01 (Vernon 1974); Clark v. Beto, 232 F.Supp. 255 (S.D.Tex.1964), rev'd, 359 F.2d 554 (5th Cir.1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 927, 87 S.Ct. 875, 17 L.Ed.2d 799 (1967), on remand, 283 F.Supp. 272 (1968), aff'd, 415 F.2d 71 (1969). Also, a state of psychosis does not constitute insanity. Morales v. State, 458 S.W.2d 56 (Tex.Crim.App.1970).

Appellant's defense of insanity was disputed vigorously on cross-examination of the defense witnesses. In addition, the State's witnesses who identified the appellant as the person they saw shoot a man, offered testimony of appellant's normal behavior at the scene of the incident in question. Accordingly, we overrule appellant's "no evidence" arguments in grounds of error one and three.

Likewise, after reviewing the evidence presented, we cannot hold that the jury's finding that appellant was not insane was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be manifestly unjust; more importantly, we further determine under the test as set out in Van Guilder, that, after reviewing all the evidence concerning the affirmative defense of insanity, any rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant failed to prove his defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Appellant's second ground of error is overruled.

Appellant asserts in his eighth ground of error that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to suppress the photographic line-up because it was suggestive. In this case, all three eyewitnesses testified that there were no suggestive procedures in the line-up, and identified the appellant at trial, testifying that they could identify him without ever having had the benefit of any photographic line-up. The law is well-established that even an improper, suggestive pre-trial identification can be cured by an in-court identification, as long as the record reflects a prior observation of the accused sufficient to serve as an...