State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 12 April 1967 |
| Parties | The STATE of Oregon, Respondent, v. Raymond Charles SMITH, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Howard R. Lonergan, Portland, argued the cause and filed briefs for appellant.
Jacob B. Tanzer, Deputy Dist. Atty., Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George Van Hoomissen, Dist. Atty., Portland.
Before PERRY, C.J., and McALLISTER, SLOAN, O'CONNELL, GOODWIN, DENECKE and BELLONI, * JJ.
Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree. While he was in jail awaiting indictment his attempts to commit suicide and other conduct caused the police to request the court that he be committed to the state hospital for safekeeping. Defense counsel and defendant participated in the hearings before the presiding judge in regard to defendant's safekeeping and agreed to a change of custody to the state hospital. The state also requested that the order transferring defendant to the state hospital should provide that defendant be examined by psychiatrists while he was confined in the state hospital to determine if defendant was able to discriminate between right and wrong and if he was capable of assisting in his defense. When the court specifically asked counsel: 'Well, does the defendant have any objection to the form of order Mr. Hampton suggests be entered,--* * * that he be committed to the Oregon State Hospital for the purpose of determining his ability to assist in his own defense and determining the position as to whether or not he was mentally competent to know the difference between right and wrong at the time he committed the crime?' Counsel replied: 'No, I have no objection to that.' The order entered by the court provided for the examination.
Before defendant was examined by the hospital staff, one of the psychiatrists called defense counsel and informed him that defendant was to be examined and questioned for the psychiatric purposes expressed in the court's order. Defendant was not questioned for several days thereafter. Defense counsel made no protest to the examination, either to the court or to the psychiatrist. The psychiatrist reported to the court that defendant was able to understand right from wrong and was capable of participating in his defense. After this report was filed with the court, defendant entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and served the statutory notice of that defense. Additional psychiatric examinations were made after the plea and before trial.
At defendant's trial, counsel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Miller
...253 Or. 649, 652, 456 P.2d 487 (1969); Henry v. Mississippi, 379 U.S. 443, 85 S.Ct. 564, 13 L.Ed.2d 408 (1965); and State v. Smith, 248 Or. 56, 58--59, 426 P.2d 463 (1967). In addition, the police officers testified on trial in some detail, and without objection, about the circumstances of ......
-
Shepard v. Bowe
...442 P.2d 238 ... 250 Or. 288 ... Bennie Cecil SHEPARD, Plaintiff, ... Honorable Samuel M. BOWE, Judge of the Circuit Court of the ... State of Oregon for Jusephine County, Defendant ... Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc ... Argued and Submitted on Defendant's Demurrer to Alternative ... These restrictions were not in issue on the appeal and we did not decide whether they were necessary ... In State v. Smith, Or., 426 P.2d 463 (1967), we expressly did not decide whether State v. Phillips, supra, 245 Or. 466, 422 P.2d 670, requires that counsel be present ... ...
-
State v. Canaday
...then, had the right to have its own psychiatrist relate what the defendant had told him concerning the same matters. In State v. Smith, 248 Or. 56, 426 P.2d 463, cert. den. 389 U.S. 849, 88 S.Ct. 105, 19 L.Ed.2d 118 (1967), the court considered the question of waiver. There the defendant ha......