Wise v. State, 90-1861
| Decision Date | 30 May 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1861,90-1861 |
| Parties | David Earl WISE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 580 So.2d 329, 16 Fla. L. Week. D1475 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Glen P. Gifford, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Edward C. Hill, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Owen G. Burnett, Certified Legal Intern, Tallahassee, for appellee.
Wise appeals his conviction and sentence for one count of aggravated assault. He contends that the trial court erred in excluding expert testimony that described the effects of a seizure which he may have suffered at the time of the offense. We agree and reverse.
Wise was embroiled in an altercation in a bar when he was struck on the left side of his head in the area of his temple. The trauma to the left eye was severe enough to fracture the orbit, the bones surrounding the eye, such that the eyeball was dislodged and there was an air passage between the eye socket and nose. Wise then remembered nothing until he regained consciousness and found himself standing over the victim with his knife in the victim's chest. He immediately withdrew, ran out of the bar and vomited. Wise sought to present the expert testimony of Dr. Walker, a forensic psychiatrist, that a blow to the head can cause a seizure, including the type known as "the running fit," which "is the psychomotor, partial complex epilepsy in which people will continue to engage in what appears to be purposeful behavior but they don't know what it is that they are doing." Wise would have amnesia concerning his behavior during the seizure, although he may have had a subconscious awareness of his surroundings, and would vomit once the seizure was over. Dr. Walker opined that within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Wise experienced this type of seizure when he was struck in the head during the brawl. Dr. Walker based this opinion on Wise's history of seizures and stated he was "confident" that Wise suffered this type of injury. The court ruled that unless Wise was planning an insanity defense, this testimony was inadmissable under Chestnut v. State, 538 So.2d 820 (Fla.1989). In doing so the court erred.
Chestnut v. State is inapplicable because it is limited to evidence of mental deficiency or psychiatric impairment. It specifically concerns an extension of the recognized M'Naughten Rule and insanity defense: "... an accused is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the alleged crime, the defendant was by reason of mental infirmity, disease, or defect unable to understand the nature and quality of his act or its consequences or was incapable of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
...to form the specific intent to commit the crime. Id. at 1029. Finally, Petitioner cited the First DCA's decision in Wise v. State, 580 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), in which the court held that expert testimony that the defendant was suffering an epileptic seizure which may have caused hi......
-
Lark v. State, 91-1641
...of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the error was harmless. State v. Diguilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1986). See also Wise v. State, 580 So.2d 329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). REVERSED and REMANDED for a new ZEHMER and MICKLE, JJ., concur. ...
-
Bunney v. State
...outside the context of an insanity plea. For support, Bunney cites the First District Court of Appeal's decision in Wise v. State, 580 So.2d 329 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In Wise, the district court reversed the trial court's exclusion of an epileptic defense because the case "present[ed] a ques......