Walker v. State, 84-2442
| Decision Date | 06 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-2442,84-2442 |
| Parties | 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2709 Harold WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Deborah K. Brueckheimer, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Peggy Ann Quince, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
Defendant Harold Walker appeals his convictions for sexual battery on a child by a person in a position of familial authority, an offense proscribed by section 794.011(4)(e), Florida Statutes (1983). We reverse.
The defendant pled not guilty to four counts of sexual battery on his stepdaughter. The charges were based on acts allegedly occurring when the girl was between 12 and 14 years of age. At his jury trial, the defendant's stepdaughter, then age 14, testified concerning the defendant's sexual relations with her on numerous occasions. The defendant raised the defense of insanity.
At the close of the evidence, defense counsel requested the following jury instruction on the insanity defense:
When insanity is raised by a plea as a defense, and evidence thereof is forthcoming prima facia[sic] sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt, the State no longer can travel on the presumption of sanity; it must establish sanity beyond a reasonable doubt as with every element of the offense charged. Greenfield v. State, 337 So.2d 1021 (Fla.2nd DCA, 1976).
The trial judge refused to give the requested instruction and instead gave Florida Standard Jury Instructions (Criminal) 3.04(b) and 2.03, which provide:
An issue in this case is whether the defendant was legally insane when the crime allegedly was committed. You must assume that he was sane unless the evidence causes you to have a reasonable doubt about his sanity. If the defendant was legally insane, he is not guilty. To find him legally insane, these three elements must be shown to the point you have a reasonable doubt about his sanity. First, the defendant had a mental infirmity, defect or disease. Second, this condition caused the defendant to lose his ability to understand or reason accurately, and because of the loss of these abilities, the defendant did not know what he was doing or did not know what would result from his actions or did not know it was wrong, although he knew what he was doing and its consequencies [sic].
In determining the issue of insanity, you may consider the testimony of expert and nonexpert witnesses. The question you must answer is not whether the defendant is legally insane today or has always been legally insane, but simply if the defendant was legally insane at the time the crime was allegedly committed. If the verdict is that the defendant is not guilty because legally insane, that does not mean that he will be released from custody. This court can conduct additional proceedings to determine if he should be committed to a mental hospital or given other treatment.
The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the information through each stage of the trial until it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt. To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the following two elements. First, the crime with which the defendant was charged was committed; and second, the defendant is the person who committed the crime. The defendant is not required to prove anything.
Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used, you must consider the following:
A reasonable doubt is not a possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all of the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which waivers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.
It is to the evidence introduced upon this trial and to it alone that you are to look for that proof. A reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walsh v. State, 1D99-1529.
...his actions were wrong, even if he understood their nature and consequences. Contrary to our sister court's holding in Walker v. State, 479 So.2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985), we find that such evidence is legally insufficient to raise a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors regarding the a......
-
Crockham v. State
...the accused's sanity must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the state. Yohn v. State, 476 So.2d 123 (Fla. 1985); Walker v. State, 479 So.2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). If the state does not overcome the reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal. Sirianni v. State, 411 So.2d 19......
-
Fisher v. State, 85-2965
...the accused's sanity must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the state. Yohn v. State, 476 So.2d 123 (Fla.1985); Walker v. State, 479 So.2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). If the state does not overcome the reasonable doubt, the defendant is entitled to acquittal. Sirianni v. State, 411 So.2d 1......
-
State v. McMahon, 84-2471
...a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane at the time of the offense. Yohn v. State, 476 So.2d 123 (Fla.1985); Walker v. State, 479 So.2d 274 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In Florida, the test for insanity, when used as a defense to a criminal charge, is a modified version of the M'Naghten Rule.......