Rollins v. Com.

• Decision Date: 28 November 1966
• Citation: 207 Va. 575,151 S.E.2d 622
• Parties: Eugene William ROLLINS v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Page 622

151 S.E.2d 622

207 Va. 575

Eugene William ROLLINS v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Nov. 28, 1966.

Harry P. Friedlander, Arlington (Friedlander & Friedlander, Arlington, on brief), for plaintiff in error.

D. Gardiner Tyler, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Robert Y. Button, Atty. Gen., on brief), for defendant in error.

Before EGGLESTON, C.J., and SPRATLEY, BUCHANAN, SNEAD, I'ANSON, CARRICO and GORDON, JJ.

BUCHANAN, Justice.

A grand jury of Arlington county returned an indictment against the defendant, Eugene William Rollins, charging him with the murder of Leon Tatleman. He entered a plea of not guilty. After hearing the evidence, a jury found him guilty of murder in the first degree and fixed his punishment at life imprisonment. He was sentenced accordingly and we granted a writ of error to consider his contentions that there were prejudicial errors in his trial. He will be herein referred to as defendant or Rollins.

On his plea of not guilty defendant offered no evidence in denial of the charge that he killed Tatleman. His defense was that he was not guilty by reason of insanity. The evidence introduced by the Commonwealth was to the following effect:

Edwin Welch and defendant lived in the same neighborhood when they were boys ten or eleven years old. In April, 1963, they met in a restaurant in Arlington and recognized each other. In a few days defendant moved into Welch's apartment and stayed there four or five weeks. During that time he appeared to be normal and Welch saw nothing unusual about him.

In the evening of May 10, 1963, Welch, Tatleman, Rollins, Robert Miller and Margaret Klassett gathered in a restaurant where Welch was to deliver to Tatleman approximately $1500 than Tatleman had won on a horse race. These five there had dinner and drinks and in the course of the evening Welch gave the $1500 to Tatleman in the presence of the defendant. Miller, who had known Rollins for about twenty months, had told Rollins earlier that evening of the plan and purpose of meeting in the restaurant.

The party in the restaurant broke up around 12:30 a.m. and all went in Tatleman's car to Welch's apartment, where Welch, Miller and Klassett got out. Welch went to his apartment and brought back a letter for Rollins, and on his return to the car he heard Tatleman say to Rollins that he would take him where he wanted to go. Tatleman then drove off with Rollins in the back seat. When Welch returned to his apartment he found some of his personal effects missing and Rollins' clothing gone.

About six hours later, around 6 a.m. of the same morning, May 11, 1963, Tatleman's body was found in the front seat of his automobile, dead from a gunshot wound in his head from a .38 caliber bullet which had entered near his right temple and was lodged under the skin near his left ear. The only money found on his body was about $17 in his coat pocket.

Rollins was arrested by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation about 1:30 p.m. on Monday, May 13, 1963, in the Bronx, New York. He then had $980 on his person. He told the agents that he had won $1800 in a numbers game and had given his wife about $140.

It was proved that the bullet in Tatleman's head was fired from a pistol owned by Rollins. The pistol was found under a bush in the yard of a library in York, Pennsylvania. Rollins had occupied a room in a hotel there on the night of May 11, and after his arrest a suit of clothes belonging to Welch was found under an extra blanket in the bottom drawer of the dresser in the room.

The evidence left no doubt that Rollins fired the shot that killed Tatleman.

At the conclusion of the Commonwealth's evidence the defendant introduced his only witness, Dr. Robert H. Robertson, a psychiatrist on the staff of St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington. Dr. Robertson testified that Rollins had been committed to the hospital on September 26, 1956, ¹ and he first met him on November 21, 1962. He had five written notes of his examinations of Rollins, had also examined him at other times and conferred with other doctors about him. He had, he said, the complete record of his hospitalization dating back to 1956. His first note of examination, he stated, was written on November 26, 1962, and it was his opinion that at that time Rollins 'suffered from schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type.'

Dr. Robertson described that as being a major mental illness consisting of three major symptoms: withdrawal, loosening of his associations, and feelings not expressed normally. In addition, he said, Rollins had normal mental faculties, was clear as to what was going on around him, but had hallucinations, including delusions of persecution and grandeur.

Dr. Robertson testified that in 1962 it was the decision of the doctors and authorities at the hospital that Rollins was competent to stand trial, and that he was then sent back to jail and stood trial. The doctor then read into the record a report which he said was dated April 1, 1962, ² that Rollins was mentally competent for trial and that 'he was suffering from mental disease on or about April 20, 1956, and the criminal acts with which he is charged * * * if committed by him, were the product of mental disease.' The report stated also that 'the patient feels that he understands the nature and character of his charges and is capable of assisting his counsel in his defense.'

After Tatleman was killed, Rollins was, on July 1, 1963, committed to the Southwestern State Hospital at Marion, Virginia, for care and observation pursuant to Code § 19.1--228. He remained there for nearly nine months and was then returned to the court for trial with the official diagnosis of 'Sociopathic Personality Disturbance, Antisocial reaction.'

In rebuttal of defendant's contention that he was not responsible for the death of Tatleman because of insanity, the Commonwealth introduced the evidence of Arthur Centor, chief psychologist of Southwestern State Hospital; Joseph R. Blalock, M.D., psychiatrist and superintendent of Southwestern, and Zygmund Wegielski, M.D., psychiatrist and clinical director of maximum security division in Southwestern. These three were questioned at length as to their training and experience, as to their observations, examinations and tests of the defendant, and their findings as to his mental condition. They testified, in substance, that Rollins had a character disorder in the nature of emotional instability, hostility and resentment against authority, described as 'sociopathic personality disorder, antisocial reaction.' They found, they said, no evidence of schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type, and there was nothing to indicate the presence of a psychosis and no indication that he did not know the difference between right and wrong and the consequences of his act.

Also, Dr. Maurice Platkin, a specialist in psychiatry and on the staff of St. Elizabeth's Hospital, testified that Rollins was under his supervision from 1957 until April or May, 1962, and the diagnosis of his trouble was schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type, but he was of the opinion that Rollins 'was fully aware of the difference between right and wrong,' and the consequences of his act; and that his mental condition and attitude improved during that period.

Also, Francis R. Riesenman, M.D., who was staff psychiatrist at St. Elizabeth's from 1947 to 1962, and afterwards examined Rollins a total of nine times, in March and April, 1964, testified that Rollins was suffering from a 'sociopathic personality disturbance or disorder, with paranoid features.' His opinion was that on May 11, 1963, Rollins knew the difference between right and wrong and was able 'to adhere at that time to the right,' and that would be true, he said, even if he were in fact a paranoid schizophrenic at that time.

In addition, those who were at the party in the restaurant on the night of the killing, and who had known and associated with Rollins over a period of weeks or months, testified that he seemed rational and normal, and they observed nothing to indicate that he suffered from any mental illness.

The evidence was ample to warrant rejection by the jury of defendant's insanity defense.

Defendant contends, however, that prejudicial errors were committed in his trial in the particulars now to be discussed.

Defendant says the court erred in adding to an instruction defining 'irresistible impulse' this sentence: 'In this respect, the jury is instructed that if the act which is alleged to be the result of an irresistible impulse was planned in advance, then, as a matter of law, such act cannot be said to be the product of an irresistible impulse.'

There was no error in so instructing. The word 'impulse' implies that which is sudden, spontaneous, unpremeditated. Webster's 3d New Int. Dist., p. 1138. The witness Centor was asked, 'Could you have an irresistible impulse and then plan to carry out that impulse?' He replied, 'It is inconceivable.' He further stated that an irresistible impulse is one that involves no planning, 'it could occur at any place in the presence of anyone, no attempt at concealment would be made.' Cf. Christian v. Commonwealth, 202 Va. 311, 315, 117 S.E.2d 7 i, 75; Snider v. Smyth, D.C., 187 F.Supp. 299, 302, affirmed in Snider v. Cunningham (4 Cir.), 292 F.2d 683; Annotations, 70 A.L.R. 659, 173 A.L.R. 391.

Additionally, there is no suggestion in the evidence that the defendant acted on an irresistible impulse. On the contrary, Dr. Platkin testified he did not...