People v. Johnson, 25049
| Decision Date | 04 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 25049,25049 |
| Citation | 503 P.2d 1019,180 Colo. 177 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Albert JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., John P. Moore, Deputy Atty. Gen., Tennyson W. Grebenar, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Thomas M. Van Cleave III, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
The defendant, James Albert Johnson, seeks to set aside a jury verdict which found him to be sane. He was charged with the crime of aggravated robbery. C.R.S.1963, 40--5--1. A bifurcated trial was ordered after he entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the alleged commission of the offense. He was previously tried and found to be sane and was later convicted of the substantive crime of robbery and sentenced to the penitentiary. We ordered that a new trial be held on the sanity issue alone because of the trial court's failure to properly instruct the jury on the burden of proof. Johnson v. People, 172 Colo. 72, 470 P.2d 37 (1970).
On retrial of the sanity issue, the jury was properly instructed that the burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt after evidence of insanity was introduced. The evidence in the second sanity trial, as in the first, was limited because of the defendant's refusal to talk to the court-appointed psychiatrist. Dr. Bradford Murphey, the court-appointed psychiatrist, attempted to interview the defendant on two separate occasions and posed questions to the defendant, which the defendant refused to answer. The only response that the Doctor could elicit from the defendant was, 'I don't want to talk to you; you will have to talk to my lawyer.' Based upon the defendant's reactions to the questions, and on so-called non-verbal communication, Doctor Murphey expressed the opinion that the defendant was sane. No other evidence was offered. The jujry made its determination of the sanity issue on the basis of Doctor Murphey's testimony and their observations of the defendant.
The jury was fully instructed on the law of insanity, burden of proof, and on the presumption of sanity. The prosecution takes the position that the presumption of sanity retains its vitality until some evidence to the contrary is presented. We agree...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Kostka
...(1895). Dolchok v. State, 519 P.2d 457, 458 (Alas.1974). State v. Cooper, 111 Ariz. 332, 529 P.2d 231, 233 (1974). People v. Johnson, 180 Colo. 177, 178, 503 P.2d 1019 (1972). State v. Davis, 158 Conn. 341, 355--356, 260 A.2d 587 (1969), vacated in part, 408 U.S. 935, 92 S.Ct. 2856, 33 L.Ed......
-
People v. Grant
...of sanity is a matter of law for the court to decide. See People v. Hill, supra, 934 P.2d at 826; see also People v. Johnson, 180 Colo. 177, 179, 503 P.2d 1019, 1020 (1972). "If [the] trial court determines as an issue of law, that no evidence exists in the record to support an affirmative ......
-
People v. Johnson, 80SA123
...appeal concerning the validity of the retrial on the sanity issue. We affirmed the judgment of the trial court in People v. Johnson, 180 Colo. 177, 503 P.2d 1019 (1972). On January 19, 1979, Johnson filed a motion for postconviction relief pursuant to Crim.P. 35(b), alleging the following g......
-
People v. Mack, 81SA104
...evidence to support the jury's finding of sanity. See, e.g., People v. King, 181 Colo. 439, 510 P.2d 333 (1973); People v. Johnson, 180 Colo. 177, 503 P.2d 1019 (1972); Rupert v. People, 163 Colo. 219, 429 P.2d 276 The defendant argues that the photographic array was so impermissibly sugges......