State v. Moore
| Citation | 111 Ariz. 496,533 P.2d 663 |
| Decision Date | 01 April 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 3043,3043 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Thomas M. MOORE, Appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arizona |
N. Warner Lee, Former Atty. Gen., Bruce E. Babbitt, Atty. Gen., by Frank T. Galati, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.
Thomas A. Moran, Yuma, for appellant.
The defendant, Thomas M. Moore, entered a plea of not guilty to the charge of assault with intent to commit murder while armed with a gun. ARS § 13--248. Moore shot a friend of his who had just had sexual intercourse with Moore's wife. Whether Moore consented to this activity and whether Moore remembered the shooting were the primary issues of fact. Before trial, the defendant served notice of his intention to introduce evidence that he was mentally defective or insane at the time of the incident.
During the trial, an osteopath specializing in psychiatry testified on Moore's behalf. Relying on Moore's version of the night in question, the expert testified that in his opinion, the defendant had gone into a condition called an 'hysterical fugue' engendered by the shock occasioned when Moore awoke to find his wife and friend engaging in sexual intercourse. He testified further that, in his opinion, Moore was not usually 'legally insane' according to the M'Naghten Rule except that during this episode, he would not have known the nature and quality of his acts nor right from wrong. Upon being presented with the hypothesis that the victim's testimony was true that Moore consented to this activity and only later became angry, the expert testified that this would have made a difference in his opinion. Obviously in finding Moore guilty the jury believed the victim's version of the incident, and therefore further found, based on the expert's own testimony, that he was not insane.
The State introduced into evidence a detailed statement of Moore's, made to the police days following the shooting. There was also much evidence introduced concerning the drunkenness of all three persons.
The defendant contends on appeal that it was error for the trial court to have refused the following instruction:
'The Defendant has introduced evidence as to his insanity at the time the criminal act charged was committed.
'The State has failed to call expert medical witnesses to rebut or contradict the Defendant's evidence, therefore, the law provides that there is an inference raised that the Defendant's evidence as to his insanity at the time he committed the act is true.'
This contention is similar to that raised in State v. Corley, 108 Ariz. 240, 495 P.2d 470 (1972). In that case, the issue was whether an inference arose that the defendant's evidence was true as to his insanity because of the state's failure to call expert medical witnesses in contradiction, and if the inference were so raised, whether the defendant was entitled to such an instruction. The defendant in Corley also quoted the following language from ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stanley
...of this appeal and petition for review in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury's verdict of guilty. State v. Moore, 111 Ariz. 496, 533 P.2d 663 (1975). Sometime in January of 1977, appellant, a resident of Vista, California, and Rodney "Skip" Halleck, a resident of Yuma, Arizona,......
-
State v. Lámar
...13-4031 (2001). I. ¶ 2 This court views the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. State v. Moore, 111 Ariz. 496, 497, 533 P.2d 663, 664 (1975). ¶ 3 In April 1996, Lamar met and became involved with Myla Hogan. While the two were dating, Hogan lived in a house on 81......
-
State v. Stone
...in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction and resolve all reasonable inferences in favor of the State. State v. Moore, 111 Ariz. 496, 533 P.2d 663 (1975). Only in circumstances where there is a complete absence of probative facts to support a judgment, State v. Godsoe, 107 11......
-
State v. Smith, 4021-2
...law. We are not, however, compelled to do so since the credibility of the expert witnesses is for the trier of fact. State v. Moore, 111 Ariz. 496, 497, 533 P.2d 663 (1975). In conducting our independent examination of the evidence to determine whether the death sentence should have been im......