Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendanttrialtestimonypleaappellant
defendantappealtrialtestimonypleaburden of proofcriminal lawappellant

Related Cases

Forbes v. State, 269 So.3d 677, 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1221
View Case »
Brown v. State of Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 56 S.Ct. 461, 80 L.Ed. 682
View Case »
Adamson v. People of State of California, 332 U.S. 46, 67 S.Ct. 1672, 91 L.Ed. 1903, 171 A.L.R. 1223
View Case »
People v. Chiu, 59 Cal.4th 155, 325 P.3d 972, 172 Cal.Rptr.3d 438, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6064, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6979
View Case »
United States v. Haupt, 689 Fed.Appx. 597 (Mem)
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Fulcher v. State, 633 P.2d 142

Facts

On November 17, 1979, the appellant consumed several shots of whiskey and later got into a fight in a bar restroom. He claimed to have no memory of the events leading to his arrest, waking up in jail afterward. Evidence showed that he was found with a friend in an alley, both uncooperative and combative. The appellant was later observed kicking and stomping on another inmate's head, resulting in serious injuries to the victim.

On November 17, 1979, the appellant consumed seven or eight shots of whiskey over a period of four hours in a Torrington bar, and had previously had a drink at home. Appellant claims he got in a fight in the bar restroom, then left the bar to find a friend. According to his testimony, the last thing he remembers until awakening in jail, is going out of the door at the bar.

Issue

1) Is it necessary for a defendant to plead 'not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency' before evidence of unconsciousness can be presented? 2) Was there sufficient evidence to sustain the appellant's conviction?

While appellant characterizes the issues on appeal differently, we believe the issues to be: 1) Is it necessary for a defendant to plead “not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency” before evidence of unconsciousness can be presented? 2) Was there sufficient evidence to sustain appellant's conviction?

Rule

The defense of unconsciousness, or automatism, is a complete defense to a criminal charge, separate from the defense of insanity. Evidence of unconsciousness may be presented without a plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency.

The defense of unconsciousness, while not an entirely new development in the criminal law, has been discussed in relatively few decisions by American appellate courts, most of these being in California where the defense is statutory.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence presented, including expert testimony regarding the appellant's mental state at the time of the offense. Although the psychiatrist suggested the appellant was in a state of traumatic automatism, the court found that the presumption of mental competency was not overcome. The trial judge was not bound to accept the expert's opinion and could rely on other credible evidence indicating the appellant was not unconscious during the assault.

Dr. LeBegue was unable to state positively whether or not appellant had the requisite mental state for aggravated assault. He could not state that the character of the act was devoid of criminal intent because of the mind alteration. The presumption of mental competency was never overcome by appellant and the evidence presented formed a reasonable basis on which the trial judge could find and did find that the State had met the required burden of proof.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of guilt despite the defense of unconsciousness.

The appellant's conviction must, nevertheless, be affirmed.

Who won?

The State prevailed in the case, as the court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the trial court properly considered the evidence of unconsciousness.

The State prevailed in the case, as the court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the trial court properly considered the evidence of unconsciousness.

You must be