State v. Scott

• Decision Date: 30 April 1962
• Docket Number: No. 45908,45908
• Citation: 243 La. 1,141 So.2d 389
• Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Eugene SCOTT, Jr.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 389

141 So.2d 389

243 La. 1

STATE of Louisiana v. Eugene SCOTT, Jr.

No. 45908.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 30, 1962.

Rehearing Denied June 4, 1962.

Elmo E. Lear, Robert Jones, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sargent Pitcher, Jr., Dist. Atty., Alex Wall, 1st Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

HAMLIN, Justice.

The defendant appeals from his conviction and sentence to death for the crime of aggravated rape. LSA-R.S. 14:42.

Presented for our consideration are nine bills of exceptions reserved during the course of trial, a motion for a new trial, and a motion in arrest of judgment.

Bill of Exceptions No. 1 was reserved when, at the end of a sanity hearing, the trial court overruled defendant's motion requesting that a new sanity commission be appointed.

The record discloses that on January 20, 1961, the trial court ordered that Doctors C. A. Sturm, Chester Williams, and Sparkman Wyatt be appointed to examine into the present mental condition of the defendant and as to his mental condition on the date of the commission of the instant crime. A sanity hearing was held on May 5, 1961, with the accused present in court and represented by counsel.

Dr. Chester Williams, Coroner for the Parish of East Baton Rouge, testified that he observed the defendant twice; an interview at the Criminal Colony at the East Louisiana State Hospital which lasted more than fifteen minutes, and a second observation conducted on the morning of the sanity hearing which lasted less than fifteen minutes. He said that the defendant told him that 'he had never heard any voices or seen any hallucinations except when he was dreaming.' With reference to his findings, Dr. Williams was of the opinion that the defendant was legally sane, and stated, 'I believe he understands the nature of the charges against him and he is able to assist his counsel in his defense and he knows the difference between right and wrong.'

Dr. C. E. Sturm, a duly qualified and practicing psychiatrist serving as a Member of the Staff of the East Louisiana State Hospital, testified that the defendant was admitted to the hospital on January 24, 1961 and returned to the East Baton Rouge Parish Jail on April 18, 1961. He said that the defendant was under surveillance by him and the staff of the hospital during the period of confinement, and that neither he nor the staff, as far as he knew, ever witnessed a psychotic episode. He stated that the defendant told him 'that a voice would tell him what to do sometimes and sometimes it wouldn't. He said that he was bound to obey that voice whatever it told him to do, he was bound to do that.' Dr. Sturm testified that he and three staff doctors, all psychiatrists, observed and examined the defendant at a staff meeting; that the majority did not believe that the defendant heard voices. Dr. Sturm said that he disbelieved the defendant because of his general actions and his general way of taking care of himself at the Criminal Colony; that a diagnostic vote was taken among the psychiatrists as to whether the defendant heard voices, and that his vote was negative. He was of the opinion that the defendant had a low intelligent quotient (in the vicinity of seventy to seventy-five) but felt that he was same at the present time. Dr. Sturm felt that the defendant understood the nature of the crime with which he was charged, understood the seriousness of the offense, and was able to assist counsel in his defense.

Dr. Sparkman Wyatt, a practicing psychiatrist in East Baton Rouge Parish, testified that he saw the defendant for forty-five minutes to an hour in the East Baton Rouge Parish Prison about a week before the sanity hearing. He said, 'My opinion was that he . . . sanity and insanity as you know is a legal term. Medically I would have to say that he was not psychotic at the time and I suppose translated into legal terms that would mean that he was sane.' He felt that the man was functioning on a rather low intellectual level during the interview. Dr. Wyatt was asked, 'In other words, your pattern on his behavior at the time that you interviewed him would be his normal behavior before that time and subsequent thereto?' He answered, 'Well, his usual behavior, put it that way.' He said he did not feel that the defendant was psychotic even though he was of a low mentality, and further stated, 'Well, sir, I could not actually every say a person was not ever psychotic on the basis of one interview like that, but one of the things that we are supposed to be trained to do is to follow a line of questioning which will bring out in the history psychotic experiences which do follow a pattern and in which a person will reveal in giving the history of himself. There isn't enough to say that I just don't know anything at all about whether he was ever psychotic or not. I have a definite opinion based on the interview with him and based on seeing . . . I don't know how many hundreds of . . . maybe thousands of people and taking their histories and in checking back into them to verify my opinion later on.'

After hearing the above testimony, the trial judge decreed the defendant 'sane at the present time, to be capable of and able to understand the charge made against him for which he is now before the Court, able mentally to understand right from wrong and to assist counsel in his defense.'

Counsel for the defendant objected to the ruling of the trial judge, contending that the procedure of the doctors in no way complied with the requirements set forth in LSA-R.S. 15:267 and 15:269. Specifically, counsel contended that the Sanity Commission did not comply with that part of LSA-R.S. 15:269, which provides:

'The accused shall be kept under observation by the physicians and they shall proceed with an investigation into the sanity of the accused and they shall have free access to the accused at all reasonable times and shall have full power and authority to summon witnesses and to enforce their attendance. They shall within thirty days make their reports in writing to the presiding judge. Their findings shall constitute the report of the examination and the report shall be accessible to the district attorney and to the attorney for the accused.'

Counsel further pointed out that only Dr. Sturm submitted a written report of his findings.

An examination of the testimony of the Members of the Sanity Commission, supra, shows that the accused was kept under surveillance at the East Louisiana State Hospital for a substantially longer period than thirty days and was subject to observation at all times. After his return to the East Baton Rouge Parish Jail, he was observed by Doctors Williams and Wyatt, who were satisfied with his ability to stand trial. The evidence is positive that the doctors' examinations of the defendant assured them that he understood the nature of the crime with which he was charged, understood its seriousness, and was able to assist counsel in his defense. Although it is averred that Doctors Williams and Wyatt did not submit written reports, we do not find that under the circumstances herein the trial judge abused his discretion in ruling that the defendant was sane at the present time; he heard the testimony of the three doctors and was convinced of defendant's mental capacity to stand trial.

'* * * There is nothing in the statute requiring that an accused be kept under constant observation for any fixed period of time, and the legislature has not therein attempted to dictate to these experts the manner and method to be employed by them in conducting their examination, undoubtedly feeling, as do we, that they are eminently better qualified to know just exactly how to best carry out their duty in this respect as the particular facts of each case may warrant. * * *' State v. Faciane, 233 La. 1028, 99 So.2d 333.

'* * * Under our law the judge is given the exclusive responsibility of ultimately determining the mental capacity of an accused under a plea of present insanity, subject to review only by this court, and the jurisprudence is to the effect that anyone asserting an abuse of that discretion has the burden of establishing it. * * *' State v. Faciane, supra; State v. Rogers, 241 La. 841, 132 So.2d 819.

'The question of the present sanity of the accused is to be determined solely by the trial judge, subject to review by this Court. * * *' State v. Augustine, 241 La. 761, 131 So.2d 56.

In his Per Curiam to Bill of Exceptions No. 1, the trial judge stated, 'There was no evidence that the man was mentally deficient; that he did not understand the nature of the proceeding or could not assist his counsel. The evidence was positive the other way.'

The jurisprudence of this State is settled that the law presumes every man is sane. State v. Augustine, 241 La. 761, 131 So.2d 56, and authorities therein cited. The law places the burden upon the accused to establish by a clear preponderance of the evidence that he is so mentally deficient that he lacks capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him and to assist in conducting his defense in a rational manner. State v. Rogers, 241 La. 841, 132 So.2d 819, and authorities therein cited.

The defendant was present during the sanity hearing; his counsel presented no witnesses in his behalf, nor did they attempt to overcome the presumption of sanity. The trial judge was correct in denying defendant's motion requesting the appointment of a new sanity commission.

Bill of Exceptions No. 1 is without merit.

Bills of Exceptions Nos. 2 and 3 were reserved to the trial court's overruling defendant's objections to certain questions propounded by the District Attorney to the prospective jurors Carlton L. Garland and Joe T. Jones.

During the voir dire examination, Mr. Garland was asked, 'In other words, if you are satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the...