Simpson v. State
| Decision Date | 25 March 1971 |
| Parties | Joseph SIMPSON, Defendant Below, Appellant, v. STATE of Delaware, Plaintiff Below, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Richard Allen Paul, Asst. Public Defender, Wilmington, for appellant.
Fletcher E. Campbell, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., Wilmington, for the State.
This is an appeal from a conviction of sodomy in violation of 11 Del.C. § 831. Prior to trial the accused filed a motion for a bifurcated trial; that is, a trial by jury as to the question of guilt and a second trial in the event of a finding of guilty before a second jury as to whether the defendant should be found innocent by reason of mental illness. The motion for a bifurcated trial was denied and the case went to trial before one jury.
There was evidence to show the facts to be that the defendant picked up the prosecuting witness who was returning from school on a rural highway in New Castle County and took him to an isolated area where he forced him to perform an act of oral sodomy upon him.
The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether error was committed in denying the defendant a bifurcated trial.
Generally speaking, there is nothing unconstitutional about a bifurcated trial of a defendant. That is to say, a plea of insanity may constitutionally be tried separately from a plea of not guilty. 21 Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law § 47. The converse, however, is not true; that is, there is no constitutional right to have a bifurcated trial upon the issue of not guilty and upon the issue of not guilty by reason of mental illness. Whether or not such a trial is to be allowed lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Holmes v. United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 152, 363 F.2d 281 (1966); Parman v. United States, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 188, 399 F.2d 559 (1968); Contee v. United States, 133 U.S.App.D.C. 261, 410 F.2d 249 (D.C.Cir.1969) and People v. Wein, 50 Cal.2d 383, 326 P.2d 457 (1958) cert. denied 358 U.S. 866, 79 S.Ct. 98, 3 L.Ed.2d 99. None of the foregoing cited cases hold that a defendant has a constitutional right to a bifurcated trial, but rather that he may apply to the discretion of the trial judge and ask for a bifurcated trial. Indeed, no decision has been called to our attention holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to have his trial tried in two parts, one upon the issue of guilt and one upon the issue of mental illness.
This being so, we see...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hester v. State
...Funicello v. New Jersey (1971), 403 U.S. 948, 91 S.Ct. 2278, 29 L.Ed.2d 859, insofar as it imposes the death penalty); Simpson v. State (1971), Del.Sup., 275 A.2d 794. Several states have statutes authorizing bifurcated trials, but they are not mandatory and the granting of a motion for suc......
-
State v. Armstrong
...See People v. Woll, Colo. 498 P.2d 935 (1972). Other jurisdictions have adopted the practice by judicial fiat. See Simpson v. State of Delaware, 275 A.2d 794 (Del.1971); State ex rel. LaFollette v. Raskin, 34 Wisc.2d 607, 150 N.W.2d 318 (1967); Holmes v. United States, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 152,......
-
Garrett v. State
...of mental illness is to be allowed in a criminal case lies within the sound judicial discretion of the Trial Judge. Simpson v. State, Del.Supr., 275 A.2d 794 (1971). Looking to the line of cases cited in Simpson, we find that the exercise of such discretion is governed by the showing made t......
-
People v. Yukl
...1974); United States v. Huff, 409 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir.), cert. den., 396 U.S. 857, 90 S.Ct. 123, 24 L.Ed.2d 108(1969); Simpson v. State, 275 A.2d 794 (Del., 1971); Commonwealth v. Bumpus, 290 N.E.2d 167 (Mass., 1972)). In this jurisdiction, an appeal was urged on the ground that the defendan......