State v. Sears, KCD
| Decision Date | 05 November 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 501 S.W.2d 491 |
| Parties | STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Willis L. SEARS, Appellant. 26398. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John P. Haley, Jr., Kansas City, for appellant.
John C. Danforth, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Charles B. Blackmar, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Louis, for respondent.
Before DIXON, C.J., and PRITCHARD and SOMERVILLE, JJ.
Appellant was convicted by the verdict of a jury of the commission of the crime of robbery in the first degree, and his punishment was set at 12 years imprisonment in the Department of Corrections. The sole issue is whether the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion for a mental examination under Chapter 552, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S.
The robbery was alleged in the first amended information to have been committed on or about September 24, 1971. The motion for mental examination, filed November 18, 1971, by appellant's counsel, Mr. Haley, set forth 'that he has reason to believe that the defendant lacks the capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings against him and to assist his counsel in the preparation of his defence, and further, that at the time of the alleged acts, the defendant may have had a mental disease or defect and as a result may have been unable to appreciate the nature, quality or wrongfulness of his conduct, or may have been unable to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, which would have excluded responsibility for his conduct under Chapter 552 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.' The motion was taken up for hearing on November 22, 1971, and was then overruled.
Appellant was the only witness at that hearing. His testimony was that he did not have any recollection of what precisely happened on the day of the alleged offense. He had been drinking whisky heavily, and was an alcoholic. He had been to see a medical doctor once, and a psychiatrist twice, with respect to his alcoholism. He had been drinking for 20 to 24 years. On cross-examination, appellant acknowledged that he had been employed by the Ford Motor Company, in stock material handling, for 20 years, and he was pretty good at it. It was not appellant's position that he was mentally deranged and that he did not know what he was doing on the day of the hearing. On September 24th, his mental condition was not any different except for the fact that he had been drinking. Appellant acknowledged further that he remembered being with other persons at several places on the day of the robbery, but denied remembering anything about the alleged offense, possibly because he was drunk.
Immediately before the trial appellant by counsel renewed his request for a mental examination, and asked for additional time to get it 'because it is counsel's opinion that this man is suffering from mental defect in the nature of alcoholism which may render him psychotic so that he would not be responsible for any alleged act in the nature of a crime heretofore committed, your Honor.' Appellant was arraigned on the day of trial, January 10, 1972, then waived the reading of the information and entered a plea of not guilty. The requests for mental examination, and the continuance, were made immediately before the plea, and were overruled.
It is noted that at no time did appellant comply with the procedure of § 552.030 as would give him a right to a psychiatric examination. Subsection 2 of that section provides, 'Evidence of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility shall not be admissible at trial of the defendant (sic) unless the defendent (sic) at the time of entering his plea to the charge pleads not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, or unless within ten days after a plea of not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McGautha
... ... State v. Minnix, 503 S.W.2d 70, 74(5-7) (Mo.App.1973); State v. Sears, 501 S.W.2d 491, 492(1, 2) (Mo.App.1973). The report of the examination then becomes evidence as a matter of course and the disclosures by the accused to the examiner unless § 552.030.6 is understood to ... Page 560 ... exclude confessions and other inculpations comes before the jury, albeit ... ...
-
State v. Lee, 13092
...unless it is preceded by a plea of that matter or by a written notice of purpose to reply on such defense. State v. Sears, 501 S.W.2d 491, 493 (Mo.App.1973). Each party misconceives the relationship of a mental examination under § 552.020, to such an examination and plea of not guilty under......
-
Boyer v. State, 35417
...and was able to obtain direct evidence of appellant's capacity. State v. Lowe, 442 S.W.2d 525, 530(4) (Mo.1969); State v. Sears, 501 S.W.2d 491, 493(3) (Mo.App.1973); Newbold, supra at 818. The trial court did not err in failing to hold a competency hearing sua sponte nor was finding of fit......
-
Stroder v. State
...by the state, the issue of mental responsibility should be considered only when presented as required by the statute. State v. Sears, 501 S.W.2d 491 (Mo.App.1973). Appellant's motion did not meet the statutory requirements and the court did not err in failing to order mental examination und......