Rodriguez v. State, 75--675
| Citation | 327 So.2d 903 |
| Decision Date | 17 February 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--675,75--675 |
| Parties | Blas U. RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Gerald D. Hubbart, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arthur Joel Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before HENDRY, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
The jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder under Counts I and II of the indictment, and aggravated assault under Counts III and IV and intent to commit murder in the first degree under Count V. The jury reached its verdict after hearing extensive testimony concerning the defendant's mental state at the time the acts were committed. The defense witnesses were two psychiatrists, Dr. Charles Mutter and Dr. Paul Jarrett, both of whom testified in substance that the defendant was suffering from a major medical disorder which was sufficient in nature to prevent him from knowing the nature and consequences of his acts.
The state's witnesses called in rebuttal of the defense of insanity were three psychiatrists Dr. Sanford Jacobson, Dr. Carolyn Sherin and Dr. Anastasia Costiello, whose testimony was to the effect that the defendant was not suffering from schizophrenia and that he knew the difference between right and wrong and the nature of the consequences of his acts.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment under each of the murder counts, five years in prison under each of the other counts. Sentences under Counts II and IV were to run concurrently.
The sole point raised by appellant on appeal is whether the trial court committed reversible error in wholly excluding all evidence of statements made by the defendant to Dr. Mutter, while the defendant was under hypnosis, and barring Dr. Mutter from testifying as a fact that he placed the defendant under hypnosis.
The only material issue involved at trial was the defendant's sanity. He had entered a plea of not guilty and had given notice that insanity would be interposed as a defense. The defense was attempting to use Dr. Mutter's testimony to show the state of mind of the defendant at the time he did the shooting and that it formed, in part, the basis of the doctor's opinion that the defendant was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia which prevented him from knowing and understanding the nature and consequences of his acts.
The state objected to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Shirley
...foundation for scientific evidence" under the Michigan version of the Frye rule. (Id. 273 N.W.2d at p. 544.) And in Rodriguez v. State (Fla.App.1976) 327 So.2d 903, 904, the Florida court excluded such evidence under its version of Frye, i.e., that the reliability of a new method of proof m......
-
State v. Iwakiri, 14316
...aided testimony on the grounds of reliability. People v. Busch, 56 Cal.2d 868, 16 Cal.Rptr. 898, 366 P.2d 314 (1961); Rodriquez v. State, 327 So.2d 903 (Fla.App.) cert. den. 336 So.2d 1184 (Fla.1976); Emmett v. State, 232 Ga. 110, 205 S.E.2d 231 (1974); People v. Harper, 111 Ill.App.2d 204,......
-
Com. v. Reed
...v. Hiser, 267 Cal.App.2d 47, 72 Cal.Rptr. 906, 41 A.L.R.3d 1353 (1968); People v. Diaz, 644 P.2d 71 (Colo.App.1981); Rodriguez v. State, 327 So.2d 903 (Fla.App.1976); Emmett v. State, 232 Ga. 110, 205 S.E.2d 231 (1974); State v. Mack, 292 N.W.2d 764 (Minn.1980); State v. Pusch, 77 N.D. 860,......
-
Sims v. Singletary
...Court of Appeals, Third District, which held that hypnotically refreshed testimony was inadmissible. See Rodriguez v. State, 327 So.2d 903, 904 (Fla. 3rd Dist.Ct.App.1976); Shockey v. State, 338 So.2d 33, 37 (Fla. 3rd Dist.Ct.App.1976). He contends that the trial court and counsel were boun......