People v. Beasley, 83CA0316
Decision Date | 29 March 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 83CA0316,83CA0316 |
Citation | 687 P.2d 1323 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Flozell Jefferson BEASLEY, Defendant-Appellant. . I |
Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Patricia A. Wallace, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Ott, Kirkwood & Cronan, Edward L. Kirkwood, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant, Flozell Jefferson Beasley, appeals a jury verdict of sane returned at the conclusion of his second sanity trial, citing as reversible error two rulings made by the trial court which (1) allowed a psychiatrist who had examined defendant for purposes of determining sanity in another unrelated criminal action to testify for the state; and (2) allowed another psychiatrist to express an expert opinion based upon the trial court record of the original sanity trial, which included local and out-of-state police reports, his own diagnostic report, and presentence reports. We affirm.
Defendant was charged with felony murder, robbery, and conspiracy in March 1976. He entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity in June 1976, at which time the trial court advised him of the consequences of his plea.
Thereafter, the trial court granted motions of both the prosecution and defense, ordering several psychiatrists to examine defendant, prepare diagnostic reports, and testify at trial concerning defendant's sanity. The sanity trial was held in February 1977, and defendant was found sane.
During the summer of 1977, defendant was tried and found guilty of felony murder and robbery. This conviction was appealed and affirmed. See People v. Beasley, (Colo.App. No. 77-876, Oct. 11, 1979) (not selected for official publication).
In November 1981 defendant sought post-conviction relief under Crim.P. 35(c), alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and trial court error concerning testimony of expert witnesses during the sanity trial. The trial court granted defendant's motion, and a second sanity trial in November 1982 resulted in a verdict of sane.
Defendant first contends the trial court erred in a number of respects concerning the testimony of a psychiatrist who had not been appointed or ordered to examine defendant during this action, but who had examined defendant concerning his sanity and competency to stand trial in conjunction with a separate and unrelated 1976 criminal action.
Defendant neither objected to nor argues on appeal the relevancy of the witness' testimony, but instead, asserts that testimony violated the governing statutory guidelines set forth in § 16-8-106, C.R.S. (1978 Repl.Vol. 8).
Early v. People, 142 Colo. 462, 352 P.2d 112 (1960), C.R.S.1953, 39-8-1, controls here because the statutory sections in effect at the time of Beasley's second sanity trial, §§ 16-8-103 and 16-8-106, do not reflect any substantial changes from C.R.S.1953, 39-8-1, a repealed statute.
C.R.S.1953, 39-8-1(1), provided as follows:
Early held that this section of the statute did not operate to exclude any other possible mental examinations of an accused. Therefore, § 16-8-103 and 16-8-106, C.R.S., its successors, do not provide the exclusive procedure to be followed. Hence, we hold that the trial court did not err in allowing the witness here to testify concerning defendant's sanity. With this ruling, we also reject defendant's argument that good cause must be shown before additional examinations of a defendant may be obtained for use at a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Fair
...that have considered this question vary in their sensitivity to a witness's use of a presentence report. See, e.g., People v. Beasley, 687 P.2d 1323 (Colo.App.1984); Oney v. State, 446 A.2d 389 (Del.1982); Warren v. United States, 436 A.2d 821 We decide today that testimony derived from imp......
-
Chapter 7 - § 7.3 SPECIAL ISSUES
...express his expert opinion based, in part, on the record in the first trial, which included his diagnostic report. People v. Beasley, 687 P.2d 1323, 1326 (Colo. App. 1984). ➢ Insurance Claims. An attorney can testify as an expert on insurance claims handling, insurance standards of care, an......
-
Chapter 7 - § 7.3 • SPECIAL ISSUES
...express his expert opinion based, in part, on the record in the first trial, which included his diagnostic report. People v. Beasley, 687 P.2d 1323, 1326 (Colo. App. 1984). ➢ Insurance Claims. An attorney can testify as an expert on insurance claims handling, insurance standards of care, an......
-
Chapter 6 - § 6.10 • PRIOR STATEMENTS BY A WITNESS
...to defense counsel one month in advance and where defense counsel had opportunity to cross-examine the witness); People v. Beasley, 687 P.2d 1323, 1326 (Colo. App. 1984) (it was not improper for a psychiatrist to refresh his memory and express his expert opinion based, in part, upon copies ......