U.S. v. Rowell, No. 74-1731
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | Before BRIGHT and STEPHENSON; STEPHENSON |
| Citation | 512 F.2d 766 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Howard Eugene ROWELL, Appellant. |
| Docket Number | No. 74-1731 |
| Decision Date | 21 March 1975 |
Page 766
v.
Howard Eugene ROWELL, Appellant.
Eighth Circuit.
Decided March 21, 1975.
James L. Crabtree, Millin, Crabtree & Houdek, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Robert G. Ulrich, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for appellee.
Before BRIGHT and STEPHENSON, Circuit Judges, and TALBOT SMITH, * Senior District JUdge.
Page 767
STEPHENSON, Circuit Judge.
This appeal from a jury conviction 1 on two counts of an indictment charging distribution of heroin asserts (1) insufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of defendant's mental responsibility at the time of the offense, (2) error by the court in interrogating a juror after the trial had commenced, and (3) error in the imposition of sentence. We affirm.
I.
In substance, appellant contends that the government failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he was able to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law in accordance with the test of insanity prescribed in this circuit. United States v. Frazier, 458 F.2d 911, 918 (8th Cir. 1972). He particularly points to the testimony of Dr. Zwerenz who, in response to a hypothetical question opined that at the time of the offense appellant " * * * was suffering from mental disease or defect which did not allow him to conform his conduct to the requirement of the law." The record included testimony and evidence indicating, among other things, that appellant had a long history of drug addition, was suffering from withdrawal symptoms at the time the heroin in question was obtained and distributed, and was able to secure heroin for himself in the process of doing so.
The government in rebuttal offered the testimony of Dr. McKnelly who, in response to a similar hypothetical question, was of the opinion that appellant "could appreciate the nature of his acts and was able to adhere to the right." Dr. McKnelly had seen Dr. Zwerenz, report and suggested they were in agreement as to everything except their conclusions.
Further discussion of the evidence would not be fruitful. Suffice to say a submissible jury issue as to mental competency was created and submitted to the jury under proper instructions. The jury having spoken, we must review the evidence most favorable to the prevailing party. United States v. Dawson, 467 F.2d 668, 673 (8th Cir. 1972). We are satisfied that the verdict has adequate support in the evidence.
II.
At the close of the first day of trial, counsel for the government advised the court that one of the jurors apparently had been convicted of several municipal violations for offenses relating to the use of alcohol. The following day, at the close of the evidence, the prosecutor suggested that the juror in question might not be a competent juror. Appellant's counsel advised the court that he would strenuously object to anything being done without a hearing-that the juror in question was the only black on the jury. After further discussion, appellant's counsel advised the court that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lehman, No. 81-1253-CR
...399 U.S. at 99-100, 90 S.Ct. at 1905-06. 5 See, e.g., United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. 1972); United States v. Rowell, 512 F.2d 766, 768 (8th Cir. 1975); People v. Fountain, 392 Mich. 395, 221 N.W.2d 375, 376-77 6 Because we conclude that there was error under sec. 972.0......
-
U.S. v. Gianakos, No. 03-2989.
...has commenced which may affect impartiality on the part of a juror or jurors command careful consideration." United States v. Rowell, 512 F.2d 766, 768 (8th Cir.1975). Jurors should clearly abstain from communicating to one another about a case before instructed to begin deliberations by th......
-
U.S. v. Gianakos, No. 03-2989.
...has commenced which may affect impartiality on the part of a juror or jurors command careful consideration." United States v. Rowell, 512 F.2d 766, 768 (8th Cir.1975). Jurors should clearly abstain from communicating to one another about a case before instructed to begin deliberations by th......
-
People v. Beeman, No. 75--351
...are first discovered after commencement of the trial. Cf. Hopkins v. People,89 Colo. 296, 1 P.2d 937; and See United States v. Rowell, 512 F.2d 766 (8th The determination of juror bias is a question of fact, See Leick v. People, 136 Colo. 535, 322 P.2d 674, and impartiality is a state of mi......
-
State v. Lehman, No. 81-1253-CR
...399 U.S. at 99-100, 90 S.Ct. at 1905-06. 5 See, e.g., United States v. Cameron, 464 F.2d 333, 335 (3d Cir. 1972); United States v. Rowell, 512 F.2d 766, 768 (8th Cir. 1975); People v. Fountain, 392 Mich. 395, 221 N.W.2d 375, 376-77 6 Because we conclude that there was error under sec. 972.0......
-
U.S. v. Gianakos, No. 03-2989.
...has commenced which may affect impartiality on the part of a juror or jurors command careful consideration." United States v. Rowell, 512 F.2d 766, 768 (8th Cir.1975). Jurors should clearly abstain from communicating to one another about a case before instructed to begin deliberations by th......
-
U.S. v. Gianakos, No. 03-2989.
...has commenced which may affect impartiality on the part of a juror or jurors command careful consideration." United States v. Rowell, 512 F.2d 766, 768 (8th Cir.1975). Jurors should clearly abstain from communicating to one another about a case before instructed to begin deliberations by th......
-
People v. Beeman, No. 75--351
...are first discovered after commencement of the trial. Cf. Hopkins v. People,89 Colo. 296, 1 P.2d 937; and See United States v. Rowell, 512 F.2d 766 (8th The determination of juror bias is a question of fact, See Leick v. People, 136 Colo. 535, 322 P.2d 674, and impartiality is a state of mi......