People v. Hampton
| Decision Date | 24 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 3799,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 178 N.W.2d 551,23 Mich.App. 190 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Van Leroy HAMPTON, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
John F. Sopt, Flint, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Robert F. Leonard, Pros. Atty., Donald A. Kuebler, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellee.
Before J. H. GILLIS, P.J., and LEVIN and BRONSON, JJ.
Defendant, Van Leroy Hampton, was charged with the crime of assault with intent to commit murder. 1 After a plea of not guilty was entered at his arraignment, defendant filed notice of his intention to claim insanity as a defense. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and defendant was sentenced to 7 1/2 to 20 years. Defendant appeals, alleging there was insufficient evidence to sustain a finding of sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant also claims the court erred by:
a) failing to conduct a separate hearing to determine whether defendant was competent to stand trial;
b) failing to conduct separate trials on the issues of guilt and insanity;
c) refusing to give instructions regarding insanity based upon Durham v. United States (1954), 94 U.S.App.D.C. 228, 214 F.2d 862, 45 A.L.R.2d 1430;
d) instructing the jurors they were only to be concerned with defendant's guilt or insanity and not with any punishment or disposition of the defendant;
e) failing to instruct that intoxication may negate the element of intent essential to the conviction of assault with intent to murder.
The court did not err in failing to conduct separate hearings regarding the accused's competency to stand trial and his insanity; furthermore, no such requests were made at trial. The trial court properly instructed the jurors regarding legal insanity pursuant to People v. Durfee (1886), 62 Mich. 487, 29 N.W. 109.
Defendant requested that the trial court inform the jury of the disposition of the defendant were he to be found not guilty by reason of insanity. The trial court refused to do so and specifically informed the jurors they were not to concern themselves with the disposition of the defendant and were only to be concerned with his guilt or insanity. Defendant asserts it was error to refuse his requested instruction to the jury, citing Lyles v. United States (1957), 103 U.S.App.D.C. 22, 254 F.2d 725.
In the recent Michigan Supreme Court decision of People v. Cole (1969), 382 Mich. 695, 720, 721, 172 N.W.2d 354, 366, Justice T. M. Kavanagh stated: 2
'This appeal makes it mandatory that this Court choose between: 1) the possible miscarriage of justice by imprisoning a defendant who should be hospitalized, due to refusal to so advise the jury; and 2) the possible 'invitation to the jury' to forget their oath to render a true verdict according to the evidence by advising them of the consequence of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.
'We conclude that the reasons given in support of the first proposition far outweigh the fear of jury integrity expressed in the second proposition.
'We feel that Lyles v. United States, Supra, is the better reasoned authority and hold that in all criminal trials or retrials taking place after the date of the filing of this opinion, where the defense of insanity is present and that issue is made submissible by the proofs, the defendant, upon his own timely request, or upon request of the jury, shall be entitled to an instruction in accord with the rule of Lyles.'
We interpret the above statement to apply as well to cases which, although tried prior to the 'date of the filing' of Cole, properly preserved such issue for appeal. 3 Thus, defendant is entitled to a new trial.
Defendant asserts that the intoxication instruction was erroneous. Defendant did not object to the instruction as given, pointing out with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Hampton
...v. Cole (1969), 382 Mich. 695, 172 N.W.2d 354, and People v. Herrera (1970), 383 Mich. 49, 173 N.W.2d 202. See People v. Hampton (1970), 23 Mich.App. 190, 178 N.W.2d 551. The Court of Appeals held that the Lyles instruction applied to all cases on appeal as of the date of the filing of the ......
-
People v. Plummer, Docket No. 10606
...4. The requested instruction on the 'Durham' definition of legal insanity was not in accord with Michigan law, People v. Hampton, 23 Mich.App. 190, 178 N.W.2d 551 (1970). 5. The trial court's instructions did not violate Cole, supra. It is true that the jury was instructed not to consider p......