State v. Cooper
| Decision Date | 18 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 2744,2744 |
| Citation | 529 P.2d 231,111 Ariz. 332 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Eugene Raymond COOPER, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Gary K. Nelson, Former Atty. Gen., N. Warner Lee, Atty. Gen., by R. Wayne Ford, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Ross P. Lee, Maricopa County Public Defender by Anne Kappes, Deputy Public Defender, Phoenix, for appellant.
The appellant, Eugene Raymond Cooper, was convicted of kidnapping and assault with a deadly weapon for which he was sentenced to confinement for concurrent terms of 30 years to life for each offense. He appeals, raising the single issue of whether it was error for the trial court to refuse to submit the issue of insanity to the jury.
The appellant had been reported to the police as driving recklessly on the street and around a shopping center parking lot. A patrolman pursued appellant at high speed through rush-hour traffic. The appellant shot at and wounded the pursuing police officer. Shortly thereafter appellant kidnapped a man from a parking lot at gunpoint. The kidnap victim eventually wrestled the gun away from appellant, and the auto crashed into the divider on a freeway. Appellant fled on foot and was soon apprehended.
Pursuant to the request of the defense, an examination of the defendant's mental condition was ordered by the trial court. The court-appointed psychiatrists reported that the defendant was competent to assist his counsel and that the defendant understood the nature of the proceedings. A hearing was held, and the trial court found that the defendant was competent to stand trial.
The defendant gave timely notice of his intention to raise the defense of insanity at the trial. During the trial the defense offered testimony by a psychiatrist and a psychologist as to the defendant's mental condition at the time of the offense. After hearing the evidence the trial court ruled that the evidence presented did not raise an issue as to the defendant's sanity, and the trial court refused all instructions submitted by the defense on the issue of sanity. The trial court did instruct the jury on the effect of voluntary intoxication in terms substantially the same as stated in the statute. A.R.S. § 13--132.
There is a presumption of sanity in every criminal case. To rebut that presumption and cause sanity to become an issue in the case, the defendant must introduce sufficient evidence to generate a doubt as to his sanity. State v. Begay, 110 Ariz. 200, 516 P.2d 573 (1973). If the evidence generates a reasonable doubt as to sanity, the burden falls upon the state to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Blazak, 105 Ariz. 216, 462 P.2d 84 (1969). Arizona has long adhered to the rule that the test of insanity is the M'Naghten rule. State v. Schantz, 98 Ariz. 200, 403 P.2d 521 (1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 1015, 86 S.Ct. 628, 15 L.Ed.2d 530 (1966); State v. Begay, Supra.
The defense argues that not only did the evidence presented generate a reasonable doubt of the defendant's sanity but it would fully support a finding that the defendant was insane at the time of the commission of the criminal acts charged. The defense points out that both the psychiatrist and psychologist testified that the defendant was insane under the M'Naghten standard.
The state concedes that each of the defense experts testified that the defendant did not know the nature and quality of his acts and that he did not know he was doing wrong at the time of the acts charged, but the state points out that the condition of the defendant's mind was caused by his use of drugs and this does not constitute the defense of insanity. We agree.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gretzler
...intoxication is admissible only to negate specific intent. A.R.S. § 13-132. See also State v. Steelman, supra; State v. Cooper, 111 Ariz. 332, 529 P.2d 231 (1974). Testimony concerning intoxication should be limited to the time of the crime for which the defendant is being tried. State v. D......
-
Com. v. Kostka
...States, 160 U.S. 469, 488, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L.Ed. 499 (1895). Dolchok v. State, 519 P.2d 457, 458 (Alas.1974). State v. Cooper, 111 Ariz. 332, 529 P.2d 231, 233 (1974). People v. Johnson, 180 Colo. 177, 178, 503 P.2d 1019 (1972). State v. Davis, 158 Conn. 341, 355--356, 260 A.2d 587 (1969),......
-
State v. Amaya-Ruiz
...for his ... irrational conduct." State v. Tramble, 116 Ariz. 249, 253, 568 P.2d 1147, 1151 (App.1977), quoting State v. Cooper, 111 Ariz. 332, 334, 529 P.2d 231, 233 (1974) (emphasis in In this case, the trial judge concluded that defendant was malingering based on Dr. LaWall's report and t......
-
State v. Jeffers, 4253
...610 P.2d 1045 (1980). However, wholly voluntary acts of a defendant will not excuse his subsequent criminal conduct. State v. Cooper, 111 Ariz. 332, 529 P.2d 231 (1974). The record shows the trial court did consider appellant's drug intoxication along with testimony by psychiatrists for app......