People v. Brown

Decision Date28 May 1969
Docket NumberNo. 41666,41666
Citation250 N.E.2d 647,43 Ill.2d 79
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Appellee, v. George F. BROWN, Sr., Appellant.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

George F. Brown, Sr., pro se.

William J. Scott, Atty., Gen., Springfield, and John Morton Jones, State's Atty., Danville (Fred G. Leach, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Larry P. Cramer, Special Asst. State's Atty., of counsel) for the People.

HOUSE, Justice.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether a defendant may waive his right to have a jury determine his competency to stand trial.

Defendant was indicted by a grand jury in Vermilion County for the offenses of aggravated incest and indecent liberties with a child. After his privately retained counsel filed a petition to determine defendant's competency to stand trial, the court appointed two psychiatrists to examine him. The defendant signed a waiver of his right to have a jury determine his competency, after being admonished by the court and advised by his counsel. The defense and the People also stipulated that if the opinions of the two psychiatrists were that defendant was competent to stand trial, that would be the only evidence offered by the defendant on that issue; but if the opinion of either or both doctors were that defendant was incompetent, the State's Attorney would have the right to cross-examine the doctors.

The report of Dr. Charles E. Beck states in part: 'On the mental exam, Mr. Brown is alert and correctly oriented in all spheres. His intelligence is average and memory is intact. Thinking is relevant and coherent with ability to abstract. Affect is appropriate. He relates himself to the examiner in an ingratiating, circumstantial and manipulative manner. Apparently he has related himself well to his work environment but is alleged to have committed anti-social acts. His reality testing is intact. Impression is Sociopathic personality, anti-social reaction. He dies not appear insane or feeble minded and is mentally capable of standing trial in my opinion.'

The findings in the report of Dr. T. A. Kiersch are: '1. In my opinion Mr. Brown is at this time free from mental defect, disease, or derangement; that he knows the difference between right and wrong, can adhere to the right and is quite capable in cooperating in his own defense. 2. I have no opinion regarding his innocence or guilt of the alleged acts. 3. He does Not suffer from any form of sexual deviancy that is apparent to the examiner, however this negative finding does not indicate that I feel he did or did not commit the alleged acts.'

Based on these psychiatric reports and his personal observations and conversations with the defendant, the court found him competent to stand trial. The defendant then entered a plea of guilty to the count of the indictment charging indecent liberties with a child. His request for probation was denied, and he was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of 18 to 20 years. Thereafter he filed a petition under section 72 of the Civil Practice Act, (Ill.Rev.Stat.1967, ch. 110, par. 72) alleging his incompetency at the time he entered his plea of guilty. On motion of the People, the trial court denied the petition.

To avert the finding of competency, defendant argues that the trial court must impanel a jury to determine the question of a defendant's competency to stand trial and that his jury waiver and competency...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • People v. Haynes
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 24 Octubre 1996
    ...in a proceeding to determine his competency." People v. Lyons, 42 Ill.2d 437, 440, 250 N.E.2d 133 (1969); see also People v. Brown, 43 Ill.2d 79, 82, 250 N.E.2d 647 (1969). The defendant acknowledges this holding and concedes that, at the time of that holding and up until the legislature en......
  • People v. Boose
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 10 Noviembre 1975
    ...Although it is unclear whether a defendant is constitutionally entitled to a trial by jury at a competency hearing, People v. Brown, 43 Ill.2d 79, 250 N.E.2d 647; People v. White, 131 Ill.App.2d 652, 264 N.E.2d 228; But see People v. Hall, 45 Ill.2d 547, 259 N.E.2d 799; a defendant is accor......
  • State ex rel. Van Orden v. Floyd Circuit Court
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 9 Diciembre 1980
    ...of her competency to stand trial. People v. Manning, (1979) 76 Ill.2d 235, 28 Ill.Dec. 544, 390 N.E.2d 903; People v. Brown, (1969) 43 Ill.2d 79, 250 N.E.2d 647. See Lyles v. United States, (1957) 103 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 254 F.2d 725, cert. denied, (1958) 356 U.S. 961, 78 S.Ct. 997, 2 L.Ed.2d ......
  • People v. Manning
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 1 Junio 1979
    ...trial must find its source in the statute, since there is no constitutional right to a jury at such proceedings (People v. Brown (1969), 43 Ill.2d 79, 81, 250 N.E.2d 647; People v. Shadowens (1969), 44 Ill.2d 70, 72, 254 N.E.2d 484). In determining whether the legislature intended to confer......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT