United States v. White, 26179.

• Decision Date: 20 August 1971
• Docket Number: No. 26179.,26179.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Harold WHITE, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

447 F.2d 796 (1971)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Harold WHITE, Appellant.

No. 26179.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

August 20, 1971.

Stephen D. Miller, (argued), of Miller, Glassman & Browning, Beverly Hills, Cal., for appellant.

Larry S. Flax, Asst. U. S. Atty., (argued), Robert L. Meyer, U. S. Atty., David R. Nissen, Chief, Crim. Div., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before MURRAH,^* ELY and HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

White was convicted by a jury on six counts of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), and sentenced to fifteen years in prison. His sole defense in the District Court was insanity. On this appeal, he urges several grounds for reversal. Inasmuch as we agree with the contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the determination, beyond a reasonable doubt, that White was legally sane at the time he committed the robberies, we need not reach his other points.

Our conclusion is compelled by the lack of any testimony or the existence of any evidence tending to show that White was legally sane according to the standards adopted by this court in Wade v. United States, 426 F.2d 64 (9th Cir. 1970). There, we held that

"`a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the * * * wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.\'"

Id. at 71. We also held that Wade should apply to cases wherein judgments of conviction were not yet final when our Wade opinion was filed; thus, the Wade test is applicable here.

A careful review of the record reveals unmistakably that the Government failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that White was legally sane at the time of the alleged crimes. The medical evidence of mental disease was overwhelming, and the evidence of legal insanity under Wade standards was virtually uncontroverted. Moreover, such evidence of legal sanity as there was — virtually none — was predicated solely on the factors of the outdated M'Naghten rule, no longer the law in our Circuit.

Four experts, a clinical psychologist and three psychiatrists, presented opinions concerning White's sanity at the time of his alleged offenses. The psychologist had tested White when he was once confined to an institution pursuant to judicial commitment and following his attempted suicide. She testified that he was psychotic, a paranoid schizophrenic "unable to distinguish reality from unreality."

Dr. Rifkind, a psychiatrist who, in an official capacity, had examined White while White was in the Federal Prison Hospital in Springfield, Missouri, expressed the opinion that White was psychotic when examined by him and that he, White, was insane when the robberies occurred. White had been committed to the Federal hospital after an original determination by the District Court that he was mentally incompetent to stand trial.

Dr. Frederick Hacker, who examined White on March 24, 1970, found that White suffered psychotic mental illness, "not being able to distinguish from right and wrong * * *."

Dr. George Y. Abe testified in December, 1969, that White was legally insane when the robberies were committed. That testimony was given during White's first trial, after which a mistrial was declared because of the jury's inability to reach agreement. In the second trial, that here under review, Dr. Abe expressed a somewhat different conclusion, stating that in the early morning hours, "probably around 3:00 and 4:00 o'clock," of the day he testified, he had finally decided that White was sane. It is apparent, however, that Dr. Abe was unsure of his conclusion and that it was related, essentially, to his understanding of the M'Naghten test.¹

It is always regrettable when an appellate court must reverse a judgment because...