State v. Johnston
| Decision Date | 14 November 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 43113,43113 |
| Citation | 527 P.2d 1310,84 Wn.2d 572 |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Curtis Earl JOHNSTON, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Mark E. Vovos Fredrickson, Maxey, Bell & Allison, Carl Maxey, Spokane, for appellant.
Arthur Eggers, Pros. Atty., Jerry A. Votendahl, Deputy Pros. Atty., Walla Walla, for respondent.
The defendant, Curtis Earl Johnston, appeals from a conviction of first-degree murder. We affirm the conviction.
On October 23, 1972, Mr. John Wylie was fatally shot while sitting in his home in Walla Walla County, Washington. The defendant was charged with the crime and entered a plea of not guilty. He refused to permit interposition of a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. Although the defendant took the stand at trial and denied shooting Mr. Wylie, the evidence produced by the State overwhelmingly established his guilt.
Briefly stated, the evidence revealed that a few days before the shooting, defendant purchased a 12-gauge shotgun, a box of standard shotgun shells, and 10 ball or 'deer slug' shells. Thereafter, he engaged in target practice with the gun.
Two days before the shooting, defendant visited the Wylie neighborhood and learned Mr. Wylie was away but would be returning on October 23. On the evening of October 23, the defendant came to the Wylie home and spoke briefly with Mr. Wylie, then departed. Subsequently, his car was observed parked beside a vacant lot in proximity to the Wylie residence. Fresh footprints in the lot matched shoes owned by the defendant. When Mr. Wylie later appeared in a room with the curtain open, three shotgun shots, utilizing ball ammunition, were fired at relatively close range, two of which struck and killed Mr. Wylie. The spent shotgun shells found at the scene were shown to have been fired from defendant's gun. No motive for the killing was indicated.
The defendant, a native of Walla Walla and a college graduate, had a considerable history of mental problems. In 1963, he received a medical, though honorable, discharge from the United States Air Force on grounds of mental instability. Later in the same year, he shot and killed his father, following which he was hospitalized at Eastern State Hospital, Medical Lake, Washington, for treatment of a condition diagnosed as "(s)chizophrenic reaction, chronic undifferentiated type." He remained hospitalized until March 1965, when he was discharged as recovered, and returned to Walla Walla to stand trial on second-degree murder charges arising out of the shooting of his father. At trial he was found to be insance at the time of the homicide, but sane at the time of trial and safe to be at large. Thereafter, he pursued his college studies and worked at various jobs.
The defendant was apprehended and charged with the slaying of Mr. Wylie on October 25, 1972. On December 20, 1972, he was transferred, on motion of the State and defense counsel, to Eastern State Hospital for observation and evaluation of his mental status and competency to stand trial. While so hospitalized, he attempted to kill a fellow patient and, on January 25, 1973, at the request of the hospital, was returned to Walla Walla County Jail, with a diagnosis of '(s)chizophrenia, chronic undifferentiated type . . ., with a tendency towards acute schizophrenic episodes . . . associated with a significant potential of dangerousness.' The hospital staff psychiatrist further concluded that the defendant's mental capacity to understand the nature of the charges against him was 'limited,' and that he could not adequately assist in the preparation of his own defense or otherwise stand trial.
Subsequently, and again upon motion of the State and defense counsel, two additional psychiatrists, one on behalf of the State and one on behalf of defendant, were appointed by the court to examine the defendant and report on his competency to stand trial, as well as his ability to appreciate the consequences of entering an insanity plea or any other plea to the charge. The psychiatrist appointed on behalf of the State examined the defendant on February 24, 1973, and the one appointed on behalf of the defendant examined him on March 8, 1973. Both psychiatrists concluded and reported to the court and counsel that the defendant was then mentally capable of understanding the nature of the charge against him and the pleas available to him. In their opinion he was competent to aid in his defense and to stand trial. No formal evidentiary hearing was requested or held concerning defendant's competency to go to trial. Trial was set for an commenced on April 2, 1973.
On the morning of April 2 and before trial commenced, the trial judge, at the request of defendant's counsel, held an in camera conference with the defendant and his counsel. At this time defense counsel explained to the trial judge that he had carried on extensive discussions with the defendant concerning the entry of a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and that the defendant, after substantial consideration, had refused to permit the plea. Under questioning by his counsel and the trial judge, the defendant again rejected the plea stating that it constituted a tacit admission of guilt and was, therefore, inconsistent with his claim of innocence. Trial then proceeded concluding with a conviction.
On appeal defendant contends the trial court erred: (a) in proceeding to trial without an evidentiary hearing concerning defendant's competency to stand trial, and (b) in permitting defendant to decide that the defense of insanity could not be raised. Akin to (b), defendant also claims error in allowing him to waive the defense of insanity without a determination that he did so knowingly, intelligently, voluntarily, and understandingly.
We find these contentions to be without merit.
The rule regarding allowance of a competency hearing to determine a defendant's ability to stand trial is stated in State v. Tate, 74 Wash.2d 261, 264, 444 P.2d 150, 152 (1968). We there said:
In State v. Peterson, 90 Wash. 479, 482, 156 P. 542, 543 (1916), we said:
it is a matter within the discretion of the trial court as to whether or not it will enter upon an examination of the question of the sanity of the accused with a view of determining the right of the state to put him upon trial and render judgment against him.
In that case there was little evidentiary basis for the claim of incompetency. Where such a basis exists, amounting to a 'substantial question of possible doubt as to . . . competency to stand trial,' then due process requires that the trial court resolve that doubt. See Rhay v. White, 385 F.2d 883 (9th Cir. 1967); State v. Wilks, 70 Wash.2d 626, 424 P.2d 663 (1967).
Concerning the nature and source of information upon which a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jones
...and defend either in person or by counsel. Const. art. 1, § 22. Dodd, 70 Wash.2d at 519, 424 P.2d 302. Accord, State v. Johnston, 84 Wash.2d 572, 577, 527 P.2d 1310 (1974). While we did follow the approach of the D.C. Circuit in State v. Smith, 88 Wash.2d 639, 564 P.2d 1154 (1977), we no lo......
-
State v. Evans
...(1967) (holding that trial court has inherent power to hear an untimely motion or order a new trial sua sponte); State v. Johnston, 84 Wash.2d 572, 577, 527 P.2d 1310 (1974) (holding that trial court may sua sponte conduct a formal evidentiary hearing regarding the defendant's competency to......
-
State v. Peyton
...A defendant is entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction when there is evidence to support his theory. State v. Johnston, 84 Wash.2d 572, 527 P.2d 1310 (1974). But where the undisputed evidence in a murder case shows the crime to have been committed in the course of a felony enumera......
-
State v. Calhoun
... ... counsel, or standing trial. Fleming , 142 Wn.2d at ... 862. When an evidentiary basis exists that creates doubt ... regarding the defendant's competency to stand trial, ... "then due process requires that the trial court resolve ... that doubt." State v. Johnston , 84 Wn.2d 572, ... 576, 527 P.2d 1310 (1974) (quoting State v ... Peterson , 90 Wash. 479, 482, 156 P. 542 (1916). RCW ... 10.77.060(1) requires that a competency hearing be held ... "[w]henever a defendant has pleaded not guilty by reason ... of insanity, or there ... ...