State v. Dhaemers, 40029

• Decision Date: 14 April 1967
• Docket Number: No. 40029,40029
• Citation: State v. Dhaemers, 276 Minn. 332, 150 N.W.2d 61 (Minn. 1967)
• Parties: STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. David August DHAEMERS, Appellant.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 61

150 N.W.2d 61

276 Minn. 332

STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v.David August DHAEMERS, Appellant.

No. 40029.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

April 14, 1967.

Syllabus by the Court

1.Where defendant, indicted for murder in the first degree, was referred to psychiatrists and psychologists for the purpose of determining whether he was competent to stand trial pursuant to the provisions of Minn.St. 631.18, a finding by the court commissioner and medical examiners that he was incompetent at the time of the commission of the offenses, rendered in addition to a finding that he was incompetent to stand trial, had no binding effect upon the court or jury in the subsequent trial of the defendant.

2.Where defendant was certified by medical examiners to be competent to stand trial, he was also competent to waive a jury with the assistance of his counsel.

3.Where defendant was apprehended after the commission of the offense and was asked by a police officer where the weapon was and replied, 'It is in the car,' and the officer obtained permission from defendant's mother, who owned the car, to search it, there was no unlawful search and seizure.

4.Where defendant was asked by the police officer apprehending him where the weapon was and answered, 'It is in the car,' there was no violation of defendant's constitutional rights against self-incrimination, inasmuch as the police officer had a right to disarm defendant in order to prevent him from committing further acts of aggression.

5.While we disapprove of the so-called M'Naghten rule as a test for determining mental competency at the time of the commission of an offense, we are bound by Minn.St.611.026, which adopts that rule as the law of this state.

6.Having examined the evidence in the record, we are convinced that it amply sustains the finding of the trial court that defendant was guilty of murder in the first degree.

Whitney E. Tarutis, Bemidji, for appellant.

Douglas M. Head, Atty. Gen., St. Paul, George M. Scott, County Atty., Harlan Goulett, Asst. County Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent.

OPINION

KNUTSON, Chief Justice.

Defendant was indicted by the grand jury on two counts of murder in the first degree and on February 1, 1965, was convicted of the commission of the crimes.He appeals from his convictions.

It is not necessary to state the facts in great detail inasmuch as it is evident from the record that a jury could find that on December 21, 1961, defendant induced a friend by the name of Peterson to drive him to the home of his parents-in-law where his wife, Penny, with whom he was not then living, was staying; procured a gun from the trunk of his car; entered the home; and shot and killed both his wife and his mother-in-law.Prior to the time of the killing he had been served by Deputy Sheriff William Broms with papers demanding temporary alimony and including a restraining order, all of which were involved in a divorce proceeding commenced by his wife.

The appeal deals mainly with the procedure that was followed as defendant was brought into court.On January 10, 1962, he appeared for arraignment represented by counsel of his own choosing.Upon motion of his counselhe was referred to the University of Minnesota Hospitals for a mental examination to determine whether he was mentally competent to stand trial.For some reason not shown by the record they were unwilling to undertake the examination, so he was referred to Mr. Milford B. Lytle, Chief Psychologist, and Dr. James T. Garvey, Psychiatrist, attached to the Hennepin County Department of Court Services.In his report to the court, Mr. Lytle found that the defendant'does not seem able to participate in his own defense,' and as to whether he knew right from wrong in the nature and quality of his act at the time of the crime, that 'cannot definitively be answered at this time.'Dr. Garvey advised the court that defendant'is not in mental capacity to help in his own defense.* * * Thus, the conclusion would be that this man is not mentally competent to stand trial' and 'there is complete blocking as far as his memory is concerned, and I do not see how we can possibly ascertain at this time what his status was at the time of the commitment of the act.'In order to be doubly sure, the trial court referred defendant to the Court Commissioner of Hennepin County, who normally conducts hearings for commitment to mental hospitals, to conduct an examination and hearing and report to the court concerning defendant's mental condition.The court commissioner and the other members of the Board of Examiners in a report dated January 23, 1962, concurred with the opinions of Mr. Lytle and Dr. Garvey that defendant was incompetent to stand trial and, in addition, rendered the opinion that he was insane at the time of the commission of the alleged offenses.As a result of these reports the court committed defendant to the Minnesota Security Hospital at St. Peter, Minnesota, by its order dated January 24, 1962.

Thereafter, the superintendent of the Minnesota Security Hospital stated that the defendant was now competent to understand the nature of the proceedings and to assist in his own defense.By its order dated September 11, 1962, defendant was returned to the district court for trial.He appeared on September 13, and pleas of not guilty to both indictments were entered for him.

On October 19, 1962, defense counsel moved the court that a further examination of defendant be made for the purpose of determining his competency to stand trial.He was again referred to Mr. Lytle and Dr. George Dorsey, Consulting Psychiatrist of the Department of Court Services.On October 25, 1962, Mr. Lytle reported to the court that defendant'is more integrated at this time than he was when seen in January.However, he does not seem competent to participate effectively in his own defense.'Dr. Dorsey, who had not theretofore seen defendant, reported that 'under the circumstances it did seem that he(defendant) would not be able to participate adequately in his own defense at this time.'The trial court thereupon, on November 2, 1962, recommitted defendant to the Minnesota Security Hospital 'until he shall have recovered sufficiently to be capable of understanding the criminal proceedings against him and in cooperating in his own defense.'

In September 1964 the acting medical director of the Minnesota Security Hospital advised the court that in his opinion defendant was once again competent to stand trial.He was returned to the trial court pursuant to an order dated October 28, 1964, and appeared on November 6 with his counsel and on motion of his counsel was again referred to the Department of Court Services for examination as to his competency to stand trial.Dr. Dorsey then agreed with the acting medical director of the security hospital that defendant'was able to understand the criminal proceedings against him and is capable of cooperating in his defense.'He again appeared on December 9, 1964, with his counsel, who requested that he be permitted to have defendant examined by Dr. James Schumacher, a psychiatrist of their own choosing, which request was granted.The matter was continued until January 11, 1965, to allow Dr. Schumacher to make such examination.On January 11, defense counsel announced to the court:

'In addition to the study which has been made by the Department of Court Serviceswe have had a private psychiatrist on it.

'We have no quarrel now with the proposition that this matter do proceed to trial.And we have been advised privately that * * * he is able to cooperate in his defense.'

The defendant waived a jury and the case thereupon went to trial before the Honorable Irving R. Brand who, after trial, found the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree on both indictments.

1.Defendant now contends that, inasmuch as the court commissioner and the medical examiners, in addition to finding that defendant was mentally incompetent to stand trial, found that he was insane at the time of the commission of the alleged offenses, that finding is res judicata and the court had no jurisdiction to try the defendant but was compelled to find him not guilty on the ground of insanity at the time of the commission of the offense.

The contentions of defendant involve two statutes--Minn.St. 631.18, which deals with an examination of a...