State v. Reid
| Decision Date | 27 January 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 1159,1159 |
| Citation | 348 P.2d 731,87 Ariz. 123 |
| Parties | STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. John REID, Appellant. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Catherine Mealey, Flagstaff, for appellant.
Wade Church, Atty. Gen., and Newman W. White, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal by John Reid (defendant-appellant) from conviction on two separate bogus check charges. After the jury returned verdicts of guilty the court entered judgments of conviction and sentended the defendant to serve not less than seven nor more than eight years in the state penitentiary. While no motion for a new trial was made, notice of appeal was timely given.
We are furnished with only a partial transcript of the testimony; this does not contain any of the evidence adduced by the State in its case in chief. When the State rested, the defendant took the witness stand and readily admitted having caused to be drawn and delivered two bogus checks--aggregating $240--set forth in the informations. Furthermore he acknowledge two prior convictions of similar offenses in Coconino County, as alleged in the informations, as well as disclosing time served on a bogus check charge in a California penitentiary.
Due to the peculiar behavior exhibited by defendant during the short course of his examination, the trial court interrupted the proceedings and ordered a hearing (under the provisions of Rule 250, Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S.) to determine whether the accused was mentally competent to stand trial, i. e., whether he could understand the proceedings against him and assist in his defense. The defendant was examined at this hearing by two court-appointed physicians (both were licensed M.D.'s)--one of whom had some experience in the field of mental health. Both doctors concurred in finding that the accused was 'aware of the proceedings and capable of assisting in his defense', although stating he might be better off with some psychiatric help. At the conclusion of this hearing the trial court found defendant met the standards set out by Rule 250, supra, and ordered that the trial continue.
Defendant asserts four grounds for appeal:
1. That the examination into his mental condition was not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 250, supra.
2. That defense counsel was improperly precluded from arguing the insanity issue before the jury, even though there had been no four days' notice of such defense, as is required by Rule 192 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
3. That it was error for the court to advise the jury as to the proceedings held to determine defendant's mental condition.
4. That the sentence is excessive in light of the offenses committed.
We shall consider these grounds seriatim:
1. Adequacy of the samity hearing. The pertinent language of Rule 250, supra, under which this hearing was held, is as follows:
* * *' It is the contention of defendant (a) that the trial court erred in failing to appoint two licensed psychiatrists to conduct this examination, and (b) the finding that defendant was able to assist in his defense was not justified by the evidence.
In considering these points, it would be well to take a close look at the language of the Rule. In the first place, it is for the trial court to determine whether there is 'reasonable ground' to believe that the defendant is insane or mentally defective. The judge is allowed broad latitude in this determination. State v. Thomas, 78 Ariz. 52, 275 P.2d 408; State v. Voeckell, 69 Ariz. 145, 210 P.2d 972; Fralick v. State, 25 Ariz. 4, 212 P. 377. If such a finding is made by the trial judge, then it is obligatory upon him to order such a hearing, i. e., he 'shall immediately set a time for a hearing * * *.' Cf. Fralick v. State, supra. The conduct of the hearing, however, is a matter entirely within the sound discretion of the trial court. The Rule allows the court--but does not require it--to appoint expert examiners; as it reads, the court 'may appoint * * *.' Nor can it reasonably be said that the court was required to appoint licensed paychiatrists to determine what may have appeared to it to have been a specious claim of insanity. Cf. Territory v. Davis, 2 Ariz. 59, 10 P. 359. However, here the court did appoint two medical doctors, counsel for defendant cross-examined them, and the defendant put on a witness in his own behalf. The fact these doctors did not specialize in psychiatry goes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moody
...120 Ariz. 301, 315, 585 P.2d 1213, 1227 (1978); State v. De Vote, 87 Ariz. 179, 182, 349 P.2d 189, 192 (1960); State v. Reid, 87 Ariz. 123, 126, 348 P.2d 731, 733 (1960). In determining whether reasonable grounds exist, a judge may rely, among other factors, on his own observations of the d......
-
State v. Steelman
...17 A.R.S.; State v. Messier, 114 Ariz. 522, 562 P.2d 402 (1977); State v. De Vote, 87 Ariz. 179, 349 P.2d 189 (1960); State v. Reid, 87 Ariz. 123, 348 P.2d 731 (1960). Reasonable grounds exist if there is sufficient evidence to believe that the defendant is not able to understand the nature......
-
State v. Alford
...that a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was never entered as required under Rule 192, Rules of Criminal Procedure. State v. Reid, 87 Ariz. 123, 348 P.2d 731. The plea, which was afterwards withdrawn, was a general plea of not guilty entered before the question of insanity was raised......
-
State v. Bradley
...to order a hearing, the trial judge is given broad discretion. Staste v. Buchanan, 94 Ariz. 100, 381 P.2d 954 (1963); State v. Reid, 87 Ariz. 123, 348 P.2d 731 (1960). If the evidence adduced in support of a motion under Rule 250 is sufficient to give rise to a doubt in the mind of the cour......