State v. Gannites

• Decision Date: 24 June 1960
• Docket Number: No. 9975,9975
• Citation: 161 A.2d 818,91 R.I. 209
• Parties: STATE v. Andrew GANNITES. Ex.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

Page 818

161 A.2d 818

91 R.I. 209

STATE v. Andrew GANNITES.

Ex. No. 9975.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 24, 1960.

J. Joseph Nugent, Atty. Gen., Raymond J. Pettine, Asst. Atty. Gen., for state.

Aram A. Arabian, Public Defender, Providence, for defendant.

PAOLINO, Justice.

This is an indictment charging the defendant with the murder of a police officer. After a plea of not guilty he was tried before a justice of the superior court sitting with a jury. During the course of the trial he set up the defense of insanity. He was thereafter convicted of murder in the first degree. The case is before us on the defendant's exceptions to evidentiary rulings, to certain portions of the charge to the jury, and to the denial of the defendant's motion for a new trial.

After a careful examination of the entire record it is our opinion that a certain portion of the instructions to the jury constitutes prejudicial error. State v. Harris, R.I., 152 A.2d 106. For this reason we shall only consider defendant's exception numbered 143 which challenges the legality of such portion of the charge.

That exception relates to the instructions given by the trial justice in outlining to the jury the law applicable to the question of the burden of proof on the issue of the defense of insanity. After stating that the burden of proving insanity by a fair preponderance of the evidence rested upon defendant, the trial justice further instructed the jury with respect to such defense as follows: 'When the evidence is evenly balanced, the plea fails. If you cannot agree upon a finding of insanity, his plea again fails. If the evidence leaves a doubt in your minds about his sanity, that is insufficient also to support the plea. It does not avail him.' (Italics ours.)

The defendant contends that in charging that his plea would fail if the jury could not agree upon a finding of insanity, the trial justice was in effect telling them that unanimity was not required on the issue of insanity. He further contends that under our decision in State v. Harris, supra, such instruction is clearly prejudicial and reversible error. On the other hand the state contends that the charge as given in no way implies that unanimity is not required on the issue of insanity.

The narrow issue raised by defendant's exception relates solely to language which, in our opinion, was an instruction that the jury should find defendant guilty if they could not agree on a finding on the defense of insanity, and therefore was in effect an instruction that unanimity was not required in disposing of such issue. The state's contention to the contrary is lacking in merit. The determination of the issue before us is controlled by our decision in the Harris case, where, in discussing a similar instruction, this court stated at page 110, 'It is certain, at least, that the above-quoted portions of the charge tended to confuse the jury with respect to their consideration of the insanity defense. * * * We are clearly of the opinion that a definite instruction that unanimity is not necessary is sufficient to require reversal.'

In considering the instant exception we have carefully examined the language of the court in State v. Quigley, 26 R.I. 263, 58 A. 905, 67 L.R.A. 322, which established the rule in this state that in a criminal case, if the accused sets up the defense of insanity, the burden is upon him to prove the same by a fair preponderance of the evidence. But that case lends no support to the proposition that unanimity of the jury is not required in determining such issue. Once the defense of insanity is set up the jury must unanimously agree on a finding on such issue one way or the other. This fundamental principle of law was clearly stated in the Harris case where we said in 152 A.2d at page 109, 'If the jury could not agree upon defendant's sanity then no verdict could be reached.'

We have also considered the state's claim that there is no evidence of insanity in the record. The short answer to such contention is that the trial justice assumed there was some evidence on this issue and instructed the jury accordingly. In fact he...