Rice v. State

• Decision Date: 16 May 1945
• Docket Number: A-10378.
• Parties: RICE v. STATE.
• Court: United States State Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

158 P.2d 912

80 Okla.Crim. 277

RICE v. STATE.

No. A-10378.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma

May 16, 1945

Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; Prentiss E. Rowe, Judge.

Frank Emmett Rice was convicted of the crime of robbery with firearms, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The question of insanity of defendant may be raised in two ways first, insanity at the time of the trial; second, insanity at the time of the commission of the offense.

2. When the question of insanity arises, it is the duty of the trial court to immediately suspend all proceedings and submit the issue of present insanity to a separate jury impaneled for that purpose only.

3. If the defense of insanity at the time of the commission of the offense is offered, this question is presented to the jury trying the defendant for the offense charged.

4. Under 22 O.S.1941 § 1161, where the defense of insanity at the time of the commission of the crime is interposed, either singly or in conjunction with some other defense, the jury must state in the verdict, if it is one of acquittal, whether or not the defendant is acquitted on the ground of insanity.

5. Where defendant is acquitted on the ground that he was insane at the time of the commission of the crime charged, if the jury shall state in the verdict that they deem the discharge of said person dangerous to the public peace or safety, he shall be by the trial court committed to one of the State hospitals for insane, and there to be held and kept as a patient until legally discharged.

6. Under the facts in this case it was error for the court to permit officers on rebuttal to give their opinion that the discharge of defendant would be dangerous to the public peace or safety of the citizens of this State.

7. The question as to whether discharge of accused would be dangerous to the public safety under 22 O.S.1941 § 1161 should be based upon competent evidence concerning the particular crime charged, including the testimony of medical experts as to his sanity. But opinion evidence of lay witnesses that defendant's discharge is dangerous to the public peace or safety is inadmissible as invading the province of the jury.

8. Where insanity is interposed as a defense, a nonexpert witness, after testifying to the acts, conduct and appearance of a defendant, may state whether such acts, conduct and appearance impressed him as being rational or irrational that is, whether he was sane or insane.

9. It is a well-known general rule that witnesses are not to give their individual opinions, or state their conclusions, when the jury is equally competent as to such matter to form the opinion or deduce the conclusion sought from the facts.

10. Proof of the commission of other crimes unrelated and unconnected with the crime for which the defendant is on trial, is inadmissible when offered to show that the release of defendant because of insanity would be dangerous to the public peace or safety.

F. E Riddle and Russell Linker, both of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Sam H. Lattimore, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Dixie Gilmer, Co. Atty., of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

BAREFOOT Presiding Judge.

Defendant, Frank Rice, was charged in the District Court of Tulsa County with the crime of robbery with firearms; was tried, convicted and given a sentence of life imprisonment in the State penitentiary at McAlester; and has appealed.

Defendant was charged with having robbed Mr. and Mrs. W. B. Dossey on the night of April 26, or the early morning of April 27, 1941. At the trial, a plea of insanity at the time of the alleged commission of the crime was entered.

The facts with reference to the commission of the crime with which defendant stood charged were as follows:

The defendant had been released from the State penitentiary at McAlester about March 1, 1941. The evidence revealed that he had been 'in and out of the penitentiary since 1932.' At the time of the alleged crime, he was living with his mother, Mrs. Ruth Rice, in the city of Tulsa, and had secured work as a welder's helper at the Bethlehem Steel plant, in Tulsa.

On Saturday night, April 26, 1941, defendant did not go to work, but went to the Saratoga Bar, located at Peoria and Admiral Streets, in the city of Tulsa, a place where beer was sold and dancing permitted in the rear. He was at the Saratoga Bar on four different occasions during the evening, and was arrested there about one o'clock, the morning of April 27, 1941. His mother testified that he had about $20 in money at the time; that he owned two suits of clothes, one of which he was wearing, and that he took the other suit from his closet and pawned it for $20.

Mrs. Hazel Hudgins worked at the Saratoga Bar, and had known the defendant for several years. She testified that he came in the Saratoga Bar early in the evening and gave her a sack containing a hamburger and some green onions. She had not eaten dinner, and was glad to accept this. He left, and about one hour later he returned and again brought her a sack containing a hamburger and green onions. She thought this action strange, but accepted it. While she was talking with him this time, she noticed a bulge in his clothes, and saw that he had a gun. She asked him what he was doing with it, and he told her he was going to take it home. She asked him to let her keep it until he got ready to go home, and he immediately turned it over to her. A little later he came to her and asked for the gun, saying that someone was going to take him home, and she gave the gun to him, and he left. In about an hour and forty-five minutes he returned, and again brought her a hamburger and green onions. He talked with her a few minutes and left. He returned in about thirty minutes and asked her to have a drink with him, and they each drank a 'coke.' While drinking the 'coke' she again noticed the bulge in his clothing, pulled his coat back, and saw the gun. A short time thereafter the officers arrived and arrested him.

Mr. and Mrs. W. B. Dossey testified that they had been to Bill Cleveland's grill, located at Fifteenth and Peoria Streets, in Tulsa, and were leaving about eleven o'clock. Mr. Dossey assisted his wife in entering the car, and when he turned to go around the car to get in, he was confronted by the defendant, with a gun in his hand. He tried to take the gun, knocked the defendant up against the car, and went around to the driver's side. As he did, the defendant held his gun on Mrs. Dossey, and told Mr. Dossey that if he did not get in the car, he would shoot Mrs. Dossey. Defendant then told Mrs. Dossey to open the rear door of the car, and he got in and told Mr. Dossey to 'start driving.' Mr. and Mrs. Dossey both testified that the defendant directed where they should drive, and tried to impress upon them that he was a bad man. He told Mr. Dossey he should never interfere with a man with a gun who was holding him up, and that his gun was not loaded at the time or it would have been too bad. Shortly thereafter, he fired his gun between them, through the windshield. Several times during the ride defendant mentioned that he needed 'potatoes.'

Defendant directed Mr. Dossey where to drive, and they drove over the river bridge, and on out to Red Fork, adjacent to Tulsa. There he looked for a bank, and had them drive around, and finally told them to stop. Mr. Dossey told him, 'If you want our money, let's get this thing over with, and you can have what we have.' The defendant then directed Mrs. Dossey to take the billfold from her husband's pocket and hand it to him, warning Mr. Dossey to keep his hands on the steering wheel. Defendant took $22 and all papers from the billfold, and handed the billfold and $11 back to Mrs. Dossey, saying, 'I will take half and you can have half.' He then had them drive back to Tulsa, but on the way stopped and had Mrs. Dossey look in the back seat for the empty shell from his gun. He had them drive him back to the main business district of Tulsa, where the electric lights were burning brightly, and got out of the car not far from the police station.

Mr. and Mrs. Dossey drove directly to the police station and reported the incident, and the police officers found defendant at the Saratoga Bar 'around one o'clock.' They took the gun from him, and found the discharged shell in his pocket. He was in the back room when the officers arrived and asked for him. Mrs. Hudgins heard the officers, and told the defendant, 'They are looking for you--what for?' He answered her, 'I don't know, but I will tell them I am here.' Defendant was taken to the city jail, and upon being questioned by the officers, freely admitted what he had done.

The mother of the defendant, Mrs. Ruth Rice, testified to the defendant having been confined in the State Penitentiary at McAlester the last time for a period of four years. That after he had been there about two years she was called to McAlester and informed that defendant had suffered a nervous break-down. She found him in the prison hospital, where he remained three weeks, and was strapped to the bed for eight days. Her brother went with her, and defendant did not recognize either of them. He was later taken back to his cell, and remained in the penitentiary for eighteen months thereafter. When she went to visit him, he would just sit at the table, look into space, and jump up and say, 'I am going, Mother;' and did not appear to want her there.

She also testified that the father of defendant had wandered off and left her to support the children. That his mind became weak, and he was just like a little child. That he would not work, and knew nothing about the children, or where they were, and finally just wandered off,...