Twomey v. State
| Decision Date | 09 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 569S115,569S115 |
| Citation | 24 Ind.Dec. 713,256 Ind. 128,267 N.E.2d 176 |
| Parties | Delbert D. TWOMEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Frederick B. Robinson, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., William F. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This appeal encompasses three criminal actions commenced by one affidavit and two separate indictments. The affidavit charged the appellant with the offenses of rape and sodomy on or about April 6, 1966. Both of the indictments charged the appellant with rape, sodomy, and kidnapping on or about April 9, 1966, and involved two teen-age girls as victims.
Defendant first contends that the trial court prevented him from having a fair trial and committed a reversible error when that court overruled his Motion for Dismissal and Discharge and Special Plea of Unjustifiable Delay filed by his defense counsel on September 25, 1968. The aforementioned Motion was based upon former Rule 1--4D, the pertinent part of which follows:
In determining that the trial court did not err in overruling defendant's motion for dismissal, we find the following proceedings relevant:
April 19, 1966--Capias issued to the Sheriff of Marion County on the basis of an affidavit and return made by the Sheriff thereon.
June 7, 1966--Following indictment by grand jury, a capias was issued and return was made by the Sheriff thereon.
May 11, 1966--Defendant pleaded 'not guilty.'
July 7, 1966--Defendant ordered committed to Division of Mental Health for 60 day evaluation.
September 14, 1966--Sixty day evaluation report filed, the recommendation being that the patient is mentally ill, does not meet the criteria of a Criminal Sexual Psychopath, and should be returned to Maximum Security for treatment.
October 18, 1966--Examining physicians recommended the defendant be permanently confined in the maximum security ward of the Norman Beatty Memorial Hospital.
December 28, 1966--Following sanity hearing of December 14, 1966, Court found defendant sane and competent to stand trial.
February 23, 1967--Defendant granted continuance.
August 16, 1967--Defendant granted continuance.
August 25, 1967--Following hearings, defendant ordered committed to Indiana Division of Mental Health for examination and evaluation for a period of 60 days.
January 11, 1968--Defendant filed petition for production of defendant for medical and psychiatric examination.
January 17, 1968--Defendant requested continuance of sanity hearing.
January 31, 1968--After submitting evidence in part, defendant requested continuance.
February 6, 1968--Defendant requested continuance.
April 24, 1968--Court found the defendant lacked comprehension to understand the proceedings and assist in his defense. Defendant committed to Indiana Department of Mental Health to be confined in an appropriate psychiatric institution.
May 9, 1968--Defendant's Motion to Reconsider overruled.
July 19, 1968--After receiving report from Central State Hospital determining the defendant capable of standing trial, defendant ordered returned to Marion County Jail to stand trial.
September 25, 1968--Defendant filed Motion for Dismissal and Discharge and Special Plea of Unjustifiable Delay.
The proceedings indicate that until December 28, 1966, when the Court found the defendant competent to stand trial, his sanity was in issue.
Prior to defendant's motion to be discharged on September 25, 1968, he had asked for continuances on February 23, 1967, and on August 16, 1967. On January 11, 1968, defendant petitioned for his production for medical and psychiatric examinations. Then, a continuance of the sanity hearing was requested by the defendant on January 17, 1968. A further continuance was requested on January 31, 1968. It is therefore apparent that the defendant actively requested and participated in the insanity proceedings and examinations which resulted in his confinement in mental hospitals. Defendant was found to lack sufficient comprehension to assist in his defense in April of 1968. The time period under former Rule 1--4D was tolled by these proceedings in which defendant participated and delayed. Therefore, defendant's Motion for Dismissal and Discharge and Special Plea of Unjustifiable Delay was properly overruled on September 25, 1968. State ex rel. Demers v. Miami Cir.Ct. (1968), 249 Ind. 616, 233 N.E.2d 777.
Dr. John E. Kooiker, a witness called on behalf of the defendant, was questioned by the court as follows:
The defendant thereafter moved that the court declared a mistrial on the basis that the question and answer pertaining to a recurrence of insanity was highly prejudicial to the defendant in that it could conceivably implant in the minds of the jurors that if they turned the defendant loose with temporary insanity, there would be a probability that he would be a menace to society. We note, however, that Instruction Number 48 on the subject of insanity advised the jury to 'look to the defendant's entire conduct, his background, and all the evidence introduced in this cause by both the lay witnesses and by expert witnesses and all other surrounding circumstances, facts and evidence that you may find existed at a reasonable time before and at the time of the crimes charged, and within a reasonable time afterwards, together with all the other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stacks v. State
...bear on the question of the admissibility of evidence in a criminal prosecution where the defense is insanity. In Twomey v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 128, 267 N.E.2d 176, our Supreme Court held that once a plea of insanity is offered by a defendant, all relevant evidence is deemed admissible. ......
-
Bimbow v. State
...117 Ind. 277, 20 N.E. 257, 725.' (emphasis supplied) Plake v. State (1890), 121 Ind. 433, 435, 23 N.E. 273. See also, Twomey v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 128, 267 N.E.2d 176; Johnson v. State (1970), 255 Ind. 324, 264 N.E.2d 57; Shipman v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 245, 183 N.E.2d Justice Hunter ......
-
Stevens v. State
...v. State, (1975) Ind., 333 N.E.2d 755, 764; Stamper v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 211, 216, 294 N.E.2d 609, 612. In Twomey v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 128, 132, 267 N.E.2d 176, 179, we said, 'Once a plea of insanity is offered by a defendant, all relevant evidence is deemed admissible.' Applying ......
-
France v. State, 1-178A23
...expert excludable. Once a plea of insanity is offered by the defendant, all relevant evidence is deemed admissible. Twomey v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 128, 267 N.E.2d 176. The Indiana Supreme Court addressed a similar question in Wilson v. State, (1966) 247 Ind. 454, 217 N.E.2d "It has been r......
-
Narrative and jurisprudence in state courts: the example of constitutional challenges to sex conduct regulation.
...against his wife). Turner v. State, 497 S.W.2d 593 (Tex. Crim. App. 1.973) (adult male sodomized 10 year old boy). Twomey v. State, 267 N.E.2d 176 (Ind. 1971) (adult male charged with rape, sodomy, and kidnapping of two teenaged U.S. v. Brewer, 363 F. Supp. 606 (M.D. Pa. 1973) (arguably con......