State v. Wilson
Decision Date | 21 September 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 9686,9686 |
Citation | 1973 NMSC 93,85 N.M. 552,514 P.2d 603 |
Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles WILSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Defendant-Appellant (defendant) was charged and convicted of the first degree murder of Mr. Joe Cardon.
An appal was not timely taken and diverse proceedings were had in respect to defendant's efforts to appeal in the court below and in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. It is unnecessary to detail these matters inasmuch as we consider the appeal on its merits.
On an evening in December, 1970, defendant entered the liquor store owned by Mr. Cardon in Las Cruces. Mr. Cardon's wife, his son, Bobby, then fourteen years of age, and a six year old daughter were also present. Mrs. Cardon noticed defendant come into the store. She got up to wait on his, but was told by her husband that he would do it. She sat down and took no further notice until she heard a loud slam and saw the defendant back of the counter, with a drawn gun, opening the cash register. She testified that the defendant told them all to stand back and that 'this is a stick up' or words to that effect. While he was rifling the cash register, Mr. Cardon grabbed him and a struggle ensued, during which both parties fell to the floor. Several shots were fired wildly about the store from the defendant's pistol, one narrowly missing Bobby Cardon. One of the bullets struck Mr. Cardon and fatally wounded him. During the struggle the defendant was shot in the chest by Bobby Cardon with his father's pistol. Mr. Cardon was pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital.
Defendant entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. His witness in support of his plea was Dr. James Lewis, a neurologist who is Director of the Convulsive Disorder Epilepsy Clinic at the University of New Mexico. Dr. Lewis testified that on the basis of his examination he was of the opinion that the defendant suffered from psychomotor epilepsy; that if the defendant was suffering from such a seizure at the time of the shooting he would not be in control of his faculties and would be unable to appreciate the nature and consequences of his acts. He also testified that, in his opinion, there was a fifty percent probability that Wilson was suffering from such seizure at the time of the shooting.
Dr. Lewis' testimony was qualified in certain aspects, if not impeached, upon cross examination. The state offered various rebuttal witnesses to show that the defendant may have been faking a seizure. There was also testimony from Dr. Welsh, a Las Cruces psychiatrist, that he did not think the defendant was suffering from any kind of epileptic seizure at the time of the shooting.
Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give a tendered instruction on insanity. The argument centers upon whether the state had the burden of proof on the issue of insanity.
The defendant's tendered instruction was as follows:
Defendant made proper objection to the court's failure to so charge the jury.
The court instructed the jury that it was the sole judge of the facts; that it should not single out one instruction alone as stating the law, but must consider the instructions as a whole; that the state had the burden of establishing the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; that the defendant was presumed to be innocent which presumption remains with him throughout the trial until his guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt; that they must find the defendant sane as a prerequisite to a verdict that he was guilty of murder in the first degree and, among other instructions normal to such cases, instructed upon the defense of insanity.
The jury was provided with a form of verdict appropriate to finding the defendant insane at the time of the commission of the acts charged and declaring him acquitted upon the ground of such insanity.
Defendant made no objection to any instruction given by the court and we will hence not detail them further.
A number of New Mexico cases have dealt with the defense of insanity vis-a-vis applicable presumptions and burdens. Typical of such cases and those to which we will make reference are State v. Torres, 82 N.M. 422, 483 P.2d 303 (1971); State v. Moore, 42 N.M. 135, 76 P.2d 19 (1938); State v. Roy, 40 N.M. 397, 60 P.2d 646, 110 A.L.R. 1 (1936), and State v. James, 83 N.M. 263, 490 P.2d 1336 (Ct.App.1971).
Roy, supra, 40 N.M. at 404, 60 P.2d at 650, mentions the presumption of sanity, and is clear authority for the proposition that:
'* * * the burden of proof is upon the state to prove that the defendant is sane beyond a reasonable doubt.'
In Moore, supra, this court speaking through Justice Zinn, who had authored Roy, supra, as well, spoke of the procedural aspects of the defense of insanity in the following terms:
State v. Moore, supra, 42 N.M. at 154, 155, 76 P.2d at 30, 31.
We agree with Justice Zinn's analysis but recognize that the mode of expression in the emphasized portion has engendered argument.
Except in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Lass
... ... Defendant contends that the sentence violates the rule that the use of a deadly weapon does not of itself raise a presumption of willful, deliberate, premeditated killing. State v. Wilson, 234 Iowa 60, 11 N.W.2d 737; State v. Phillips, 118 Iowa 660, 92 N.W. 876 ... The court did not instruct, however, that use of a deadly weapon 'raises' a 'presumption' but rather that it 'warrants' an 'inference.' Moreover, the court did not instruct that the use of a deadly ... ...
-
Com. v. Kostka
...State v. Lass, 228 N.W.2d 758, 768 (Iowa, 1975); People v. Gray, 57 Mich.App. 289, 296, 225 N.W.2d 733 (1975); State v. Wilson, 85 N.M. 552, 555, 514 P.2d 603 (1973). Cf. United States v. Dube, 520 F.2d 250, 255 (1st Cir. 1975) (Campbell, J., Although it is true that allowing the jury to co......
-
State v. Pothier
... ... Defendants argue that the trial court did not properly instruct the jury on the elements of contempt. "If error is to be claimed concerning a court's failure to give a requested instruction to a jury, such instruction must be a proper statement of the law." State v. Wilson, 85 N.M. 552, 555, 514 P.2d 603, 606 (1973) (quoting State v. Williams, 76 N.M. 578, 417 P.2d 62 (1966)). The refusal to answer questions in the presence of the court literally disrupts the progress of the trial and the orderly administration of justice. Case I, 100 N.M. at 174, 667 P.2d at 979 ... ...
-
State v. Martinez
...[is] not required to affirmatively prove sanity but could rather rely on the presumption." State v. Wilson , 1973-NMSC-093, ¶ 19, 85 N.M. 552, 514 P.2d 603.{38} The district court instructed the jury that the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant was sane at t......