Wheeler v. State, 49319
| Decision Date | 24 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 49319,49319 |
| Citation | 344 So.2d 244 |
| Parties | Wayne Edward WHEELER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
David LaCroix and Aaron A. Green, Gainesville, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
After the trial of this cause, the Court decided Roberts v. State, 335 So.2d 285 (Fla.1976), in which we adopted the 'Lyles rule' which requires the trial judge to instruct the jury as to the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Defense counsel requested such an instruction in the present case, and the trial judge, who did not have the benefit of our opinion in Roberts v. State, supra, refused to give the instruction. The decisional law in effect at the time an appeal is decided governs the issues raised on appeal, even where there has been a change of law since the time of trial. Evans v. St. Regis Paper Co., 287 So.2d 296 (Fla.1973); Williams v. Wainright, 325 So.2d 485 (Fla.4th DCA 1975); Cosby v. State, 297 So.2d 617 (Fla.1st DCA 1974). In these circumstances, we are required to reverse appellant's conviction.
Because this case must be tried again, we reach the question of what standards should apply when an insanity defense is raised. The trial judge instructed the jury as follows:
Under the law a person is sane and responsible for his crime if he has sufficient mental capacity to understand what he is doing and to understand that his act is wrong. If at the time of an alleged crime a defendant was by reason of mental infirmity unable to understand the nature of his act or its consequences or was incapable of distinguishing that which is right from that which is wrong he was legally insane and should not be convicted.
Insanity may be permanent, temporary or intermittent. It is for you to determine the question of the insanity of the defendant at the time of the alleged commission of the crime.
Unrestrained passion or ungovernable temper is not insanity and is no excuse for the commission of a crime even though the normal judgment of the person is overcome by passion of temper.
Counsel for the defendant invites us to abandon the M'Naghten rule, as set forth in Anderson v. State, 276 So.2d 17 (Fla.1973), and urges us to adopt the test agreed on by the American Law Institute. 1 We are told that psychiatry has progressed to the point that the rules should be altered to facilitate greater participation by psychiatrists in deciding who should be held criminally responsible.
For many of the reasons advanced by appellant, this Court recently adopted the modified jury instruction on insanity set forth in Florida Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases, approved by this Court's order in In re Standard Jury Instructions In Criminal Cases, 327 So.2d 6, filed February 4, 1976. 2
The new formulation adopts the 'disease or defect' elements of the ALI test. We decline to adopt the so-called 'irresistible impulse' portion of the ALI test which excuses from criminal responsibility the defendant who 'lacks substantial capacity . . . to conform his conduct to the requirement of the law.' We hold that the revised jury instruction on insanity correctly states the law of Florida...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Freund v. Butterworth
...consequences, or if he did understand it, was incapable of distinguishing that which is right from that which is wrong.Wheeler v. State, 344 So.2d 244, 245 n. 2 (Fla.1977).25 The record before us does not include transcripts of the penalty phase.26 Judge Mounts did not preside over the rele......
-
Cauley v. City of Jacksonville
... ... sovereign immunity and establishes a statutory cap for compensatory recovery against the state and county governments for operational-level negligence. Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River ... ...
-
Rogers v. State
...law in effect at the time of the resentencing or before any direct appeal from the proceeding is final applies."); Wheeler v. State , 344 So. 2d 244, 245 (Fla. 1977) ("The decisional law in effect at the time an appeal is decided governs the issues raised on appeal, even where there has bee......
-
State v. Fleming
...law in effect at the time of the resentencing or before any direct appeal from the proceeding is final applies. See Wheeler v. State, 344 So.2d 244, 245 (Fla.1977) (“The decisional law in effect at the time an appeal is decided governs the issues raised on appeal, even where there has been ......
-
"Till the detail of surface is in accord with the root in justice": treason, insanity, and the trial of Ezra Pound.
...821 (Fla. 1989); Gurganus v. State, 451 So. 2d 817, 820 (Fla. 1984); Mines v. State, 390 So. 2d 332, 336 (Fla. 1980); Wheeler v. State, 344 So. 2d 244, 245 (Fla. 1977); Anderson v. State, 276 So. 2d 17, 18 (Fla. 1973); Piecott v. State, 116 So. 2d 626, 627 (Fla. 1960); Davis v. State, 32 So......