People v. King
| Decision Date | 21 May 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 25157,25157 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles R. KING, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Jarvis W. Seccombe, Dist. Atty., Second Judicial Dist., Dale Tooley, Dist. Atty., Silvana Del Piccolo, Coleman M. Connolly, Deputy Dist. Attys., Brooke Wunnicke, Chief Appellate Deputy Dist. Atty., Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.
Rollie R. Rogers, State Public Defender, J. D. MacFarlane, Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Kenneth J. Russell, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellee.
Appellee, Charles R. King, was charged with the murder of his wife, Barbara Jean King. He pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the alleged commission of the offense. On his motion the court ordered a bifurcated trial pursuant to 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 39--8--3. Trial on the sanity issue was to a jury. At the conclusion of all the evidence, the trial court granted King's motion for a directed verdict of insanity.
The district attorney has challenged the propriety of the court's ruling on the motion for a directed verdict, contending that under all the evidence there was a disputed question of fact concerning King's sanity, which was a matter for the jury's determination. We agree and reverse the judgment.
The People's evidence disclosed that about midnight on April 9, 1970, King returned to his home, where he lived with his wife and children and his mother-in-law. He commenced arguing with his wife, who had previously gone to bed. The argument eventually developed into a violent fight. His invalided mother-in-law attempted to intervene. King thereupon seized her crutch, pushed her to the floor, and beat his wife with the crutch so forcefully that he broke it. He then shot his wife three times, killing her. He also shot his mother-in-law, wounding her in the arm and shoulder. Among the People's witnesses were two eyewitnesses to the fight and killing, the mother-in-law and a thirteen-year-old daughter of the deceased. Other witnesses included a neighbor who lived in the adjoining unit of the duplex where the homicide occurred and the arresting and investigating police officers. There was testimony that King and his wife had fought often in the past. He was characterized as being mean and a bully. He had engaged in weekened drinking bouts with some regularity. On this occasion King had been drinking and his eyes were bloodshot. But, according to his mother-in-law, the thirteen-year-old stepdaughter and the neighbor lady, he appeared no different than on other occasions when he had been drinking.
The People's evidence further showed that after the shooting King ran down the stairs and fled out the back door where an officer was waiting. King thrust the gun into the officer's abdomen, attempting to discharge it, but it jammed. He declared to the officer, 'Man, you're lucky.' Upon being taken around to the front of the house, he saw his neighbor and warned her: 'Eleanor, don't go into the house.' She observed that he looked quite normal to her.
The arresting and investigating officers testified that King was moderately under the influence of alcohol, but was rational and appeared to understand his circumstances. He was advised of his rights on the way to the police station and seemed to understand the advisement. He inquired whether he should have an attorney. At the police station he was again advised of his rights and signed the advisement form. He asked for a lawyer and talked with the Public Defender. He thereafter declined to make any statement.
In sum, from the People's evidence, if believed, it could reasonably be inferred that under the legal definition of insanity, King was not insane but rather his actions were induced by 'moral obliquity, mental depravity, or passion growing out of anger, revenge, hatred or other motives, and kindred evil conditions' and, therefore, he was accountable to the law. 1965 Perm.Supp., C.R.S.1963, 39--8--1.
King did not testify. His evidence consisted of the testimony of drinking companions and persons who had seen him during the hours preceding the shooting. There was evidence that King spent the afternoon drinking beer and whiskey and smoking marijuana; that he had taken some drugs, identified as tuinol, commonly known as 'downers'; that he appeared angry, detached, and at some point acted like a madman; that his eyeballs were big and glassy; that he was upset; that he acted differently from other times when he had been drinking; and that he was somewhat incoherent.
Two medical doctors, one an expert in the field of clinical toxicology, and the other a psychiatrist specializing in the areas of alcoholism and drug abuse, testified for the defense. Both were of the opinion that King was legally insane at the time of the homicide. Their opinions were based solely upon interviews with King, conducted approximately eight months after the homicide. Their respective interviews totaled two hours in length for each doctor. The history obtained from King, which they did not verify, indicated that in the late afternoon of April 9, in addition to the prolonged drinking of whiskey and beer and the taking of downers, unbeknownst to King he ingested two LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide) tablets given to him by a friend to make him feel better. Thereafter, he experienced a 'bad trip' during which he hallucinated and experienced bizarre happenings, anxiety, fear, anger, disorientation, and, in short, suffered an LSD intoxication. From this history the medical experts opined that King was suffering from a toxic psychosis and was irrational; that he was out of touch with reality and not consciously able to make decisions; and that he was rendered unable to control his actions at the time of the homicide. The record discloses no direct evidence that King in fact took LSD. His doctors' opinions, however, were necessarily predicated upon the assumption that he had in fact taken LSD and had experienced a 'bad trip' as he described it to them. In other words, the truth of his account was assumed for the purposes of their diagnoses.
Thus there was squarely before the court and jury the issue of whether King was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Serravo
...of Institutions until such time as the defendant is eligible for release, § 16-8-105(4), 8A C.R.S. (1986). In People v. King, 181 Colo. 439, 444, 510 P.2d 333, 336 (1973), this court reversed the trial court's direction of an insanity verdict and held that a retrial of the defendant would n......
-
People v. Romero
...expert witnesses, in determining the factual question of whether the defendant was or was not hypnotized. See, e.g., People v. King, 181 Colo. 439, 510 P.2d 333 (1973). A trial court's factual findings supported by competent evidence in the record will not be disturbed on appeal. E.g., Peop......
-
People v. Free
...user of drugs or alcohol, or that the claimed disease or defect was "settled" or "fixed." The defendant relies on People v. King (1973), 181 Colo. 439, 510 P.2d 333, and People v. Kuhn (1979), 68 Ill.App.3d 59, 24 Ill.Dec. 476, 385 N.E.2d 388. Neither case deals with this particular issue a......
-
People v. Baca
...187 Colo. 294, 530 P.2d 496 (1975) (jurisdictional defect of improper information negates attachment of jeopardy); People v. King, 181 Colo. 439, 510 P.2d 333 (1973); Espinoza v. District Court, 180 Colo. 391, 506 P.2d 131 (1973); Maes v. District Court, 180 Colo. 169, 503 P.2d 621 (1972). ......
-
Punishing Temporary Drug-induced Insanity: an Analysis Ofstate v. Hotz, 281 Neb. 260, 795 N.w.2d 645 (2011)
...Cir. 1968), "necessarily implied" in United States v. Stewart, 443 F.2d 1129 (10th Cir. 1971), "apparently recognized" in People v. King, 181 Colo. 439 (1973), and "strongly implied" in State v. Painter, 135 W. va. 106 (1950). Hassman, supra note 41, at 130-33. A fifteen-year-old that kille......
-
Rule 702 TESTIMONY BY EXPERTS
...Jury is not bound by the testimony of expert witnesses, which must be considered and weighed as that of other witnesses. People v. King, 181 Colo. 439, 510 P.2d 333 (1973). A medical opinion is admissible if founded on reasonable medical probability. Thirsk v. Ethicon, Inc., 687 P.2d 1315 (......
-
Section 18 CRIMES - EVIDENCE AGAINST ONE'S SELF-JEOPARDY.
...double jeopardy means that no person shall twice be put in danger of conviction and punishment for the same offense. People v. King, 181 Colo. 439, 510 P.2d 233 (1973). This section protects not only against a second trial for the same offense but also against multiple punishments for the s......
-
Chapter 1 - § 1.4 • FIRST APPEARANCE AND ARRAIGNMENT
...double jeopardy means that no person shall twice be put in danger of conviction and punishment for the same offense. People v. King, 510 P.2d 333 (Colo. 1973). The argument that sanctions imposed by the Motor Vehicle Division amount to jeopardy and preclude the prosecution of a defendant wh......