Presumption Of Sanity

179 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Durham v. United States
  214 F.2d 862· D.C. Cir.· 1954-07-01 ·cited 332×
  The court held that the trial court erred in finding insufficient evidence of insanity, as psychiatric testimony and other evidence met the threshold to shift the burden of proof to the government. The court also adopted a new test for criminal responsibility.
• Tatum v. United States
  190 F.2d 612· D.C. Cir.· 1951-05-05 ·cited 225×
  The court held that the trial court's instruction to the jury that the defendant was guilty, even after his counsel admitted guilt, constituted reversible error.
• McDONALD v. United States
  312 F.2d 847· D.C. Cir.· 1962-10-08 ·cited 218×
• Smith v. State
  521 So. 2d 106· Fla.· 1988-01-21 ·cited 159×
  The standard jury instruction on insanity, despite being inadequate to fully state Florida law regarding the burden of proof on sanity, is not fundamental error requiring reversal when given without objection and when the overall jury instructions made clear the state's burden to
• United States v. Currens
  290 F.2d 751· 3d Cir.· 1961-05-01 ·cited 135×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the conviction and commitment, believing the traditional insanity charge did not prejudice the defendant and that the defendant would receive beneficial psychiatric treatment under the Youth Correction Act.
• Thalheim v. State
  38 Fla. 169· Fla.· 1896-06-01 ·cited 130×
  Carl Thalheim was convicted of embezzling funds belonging to a foreign corporation (Anglo-Continental Guano Works) while serving as its agent in Florida. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding multiple errors in jury instructions regarding the am
• Davis v. State
  44 Fla. 32· Fla.· 1902-01-01 ·cited 129×
  A trial court properly admits evidence that a homicide victim died in another state when the indictment alleges only that the mortal wound was inflicted in the county where the court has jurisdiction, without specifying the place of death. A trial court may exclude evidence of a
• Wright v. United States
  250 F.2d 4· D.C. Cir.· 1957-10-30 ·cited 124×
  The majority reversed the conviction, finding that reasonable jurors could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane at the time of the shooting, despite the jury's verdict.
• Jones v. State
  332 So. 2d 615· Fla.· 1976-05-12 ·cited 120×
  Jimmy Lee Jones was convicted of rape and first-degree murder for the brutal stabbing death of Estelle Berkowitz. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction but vacated the death sentence and remanded for imposition of a life sentence, finding the trial judge erred in igno
• Gardiner v. Goertner
  110 Fla. 377· Fla.· 1932-07-18 ·cited 109×
  Elizabeth W. Gardiner appeals from a decree revoking the probate of Francis Gardiner's will dated November 1, 1929, which left his entire estate to her. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the revocation, finding sufficient evidence of undue influence and testamentary incapacity d
• Parkin v. State
  238 So. 2d 817· Fla.· 1970-07-13 ·cited 99×
  Mary Julia Parkin, charged with first-degree murder, invoked the privilege against self-incrimination to refuse a court-ordered psychiatric examination after she pleaded insanity. The Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant who raises an insanity defense impliedly waives the
• Tura Yohn v. State
  476 So. 2d 123· Fla.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 96×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that when an insanity defense is raised, the trial court must clearly instruct the jury that the state bears the burden of proving the defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt once the presumption of sanity is rebutted by evidence. The standard
• United States v. Harper
  450 F.2d 1032· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-25 ·cited 90×
  The court held that the admission of testimony from court-appointed doctors regarding competency, the use of medical reports for impeachment, jury instructions on the presumption of sanity, and the sufficiency of evidence were all proper.
• Fitts v. United States
  284 F.2d 108· 10th Cir.· 1960-10-27 ·cited 86×
  A diagnosis of mental illness necessitating commitment to a mental institution shortly after the crime is legally sufficient to raise the issue of mental capacity, and in the absence of government evidence of sanity, the defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal.
• Armstrong v. State
  30 Fla. 170· Fla.· 1892-06-01 ·cited 84×
  Robert Armstrong was convicted of murdering Jacksonville police officer Carleton Lowe. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the murder conviction, finding the trial verdict was unsupported by evidence when properly considering extensive testimony that Armstrong suffered from a chro
• United States v. Bass
  490 F.2d 846· 5th Cir.· 1974-03-11 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the government failed to present sufficient evidence to raise a jury question on the defendant's sanity, and also failed to present sufficient evidence for several of the drug offense counts. The court reversed the convictions.
• Dusky v. United States
  295 F.2d 743· 8th Cir.· 1961-11-03 ·cited 80×
  The court held that the evidence as a whole was sufficient to justify the jury's conclusion that the defendant was legally sane at the time of the offense, and that the government sustained its burden on the sanity issue.
• Comer Blocker v. United States
  288 F.2d 853· D.C. Cir.· 1961-03-03 ·cited 79×
  The court clarifies that the Douglas opinion did not limit jury consideration of expert testimony solely to cases with disagreement among psychiatrists or expert testimony supporting guilt.
• Howard v. United States
  232 F.2d 274· 5th Cir.· 1956-04-20 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the district court erred in its jury instructions regarding the presumption of sanity and the elements required to prove insanity.
• Holloway v. United States
  148 F.2d 665· D.C. Cir.· 1945-02-26 ·cited 74×
  The court held that a jury's verdict on the sanity of a defendant, when properly instructed, should not be disturbed on appeal simply because it conflicts with expert psychiatric opinion.
• United States v. Monroe
  552 F.2d 860· 9th Cir.· 1977-02-22 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the republication of controlled substance schedules was sufficient, the evidence supported the conspiracy conviction, the insanity defense was properly rejected, prosecutorial misconduct claims were either valid but harmless or denied, and the concurrent sente
• Monroe Holmes v. State
  374 So. 2d 944· Fla.· 1979-04-26 ·cited 66×
  Monroe Holmes was convicted of murdering a police officer after entering a guilty plea and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and death sentence, rejecting Holmes's arguments that his guilty plea was involuntary, that he was insane at the time o
• United States v. Westerhausen
  283 F.2d 844· 7th Cir.· 1960-11-18 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence of the defendant's sanity to overcome the substantial evidence of insanity presented by the defense, thus precluding a judgment of acquittal.
• Grover Lee Isaac v. United States
  284 F.2d 168· D.C. Cir.· 1960-01-21 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the trial court erred in not directing a judgment of acquittal by reason of insanity, as the evidence presented a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's sanity.
• Hassey v. Williams
  127 Fla. 734· Fla.· 1937-04-19 ·cited 61×
  In this Florida Supreme Court case, the court reversed a lower court decision that voided a property deed executed by Bulah Williams, who had been adjudicated insane in 1918 but was discharged from a mental hospital as cured in 1919 and had lived normally for 15+ years before exe
• Otney v. United States
  340 F.2d 696· 10th Cir.· 1965-01-26 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the trial court erred in its jury instruction regarding the presumption of sanity and in admitting a psychiatric opinion report under the Federal Shop Book Act. The court also noted that a confession obtained without effective waiver of counsel rights should b
• Hall v. State
  568 So. 2d 882· Fla.· 1990-09-06 ·cited 58×
  Anthony Hall was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death for his participation in a robbery, kidnapping, and murder. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred by excluding qualified expert te
• Tarvestad v. United States
  418 F.2d 1043· 8th Cir.· 1969-12-10 ·cited 56×
  The court affirmed the convictions, finding no prejudicial error in the jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, or Fifth Amendment and Jencks Act issues, and that the evidence supported the jury's findings on the defendants' competency and guilt.
• Byrd v. State
  297 So. 2d 22· Fla.· 1974-02-21 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the jury's determination of sanity is a question of fact and that the evidence presented was insufficient to create a reasonable doubt requiring the State to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Handy
  454 F.2d 885· 9th Cir.· 1971-10-20 ·cited 54×
  The court affirmed the conviction, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions, the handling of the insanity defense, or the jury misconduct claims.
• United States v. Segna
  555 F.2d 226· 9th Cir.· 1977-04-06 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the prosecutor's conduct in calling the decedent's widow as a witness was improper and prejudiced the jury.
• Beltran v. United States
  302 F.2d 48· 1st Cir.· 1962-04-20 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial judge's finding of the defendant's mental competency and criminal responsibility was supported by substantial evidence, despite conflicting expert testimony.
• Simmons v. United States
  253 F.2d 909· 8th Cir.· 1958-04-18 ·cited 46×
  A federal prisoner must exhaust remedies under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 in the sentencing court before seeking habeas corpus relief, even for issues of mental competency at the time of trial, unless a specific certification under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4245 has been filed.
• Hall v. United States
  295 F.2d 26· 4th Cir.· 1961-10-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the defendant's testimony regarding his mental state, along with expert psychiatric testimony, was sufficient to raise a jury question on the issue of sanity, thus requiring reversal of the conviction.
• Ashley v. Pescor
  147 F.2d 318· 8th Cir.· 1945-01-08 ·cited 44×
  A prior adjudication of insanity, not directly challenged or overturned, constitutes prima facie evidence of incompetence and, if uncontradicted, renders a subsequent conviction void, entitling the petitioner to discharge via habeas corpus.
• Blatch v. State
  216 So. 2d 261· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-12-03 ·cited 43×
  Harold Blatch appealed his 1949 murder conviction, claiming insufficient evidence, improper jury instruction on insanity, and improper admission of his confession. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, holding that substantial evidence supported the guilty v
• Zackery Holiday v. State
  753 So. 2d 1264· Fla.· 2000-02-24 ·cited 42×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts regarding whether instructing a jury with an outdated entrapment instruction that did not reflect the burden of proof analysis established in Munoz v. State constitutes fundamental error requiring reversal abse
• United States v. Bettenhausen
  499 F.2d 1223· 10th Cir.· 1974-07-01 ·cited 42×
  The court held that venue was proper in Kansas, the trial court did not err in refusing to submit the sanity issue, statements were properly admitted, the speedy trial right was not violated, prosecutorial misconduct was not prejudicial, prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 was per
• Britts v. State
  158 Fla. 839· Fla.· 1947-05-02 ·cited 42×
  Joseph Edward Britts was convicted of assault with intent to commit manslaughter for shooting a patrolman. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his conviction, holding that uncontradicted medical evidence established that Britts was suffering from alcoholic hallucinosis at the time
• Willingham v. State
  21 Fla. 761· Fla.· 1886-01-01 ·cited 41×
  William Willingham was convicted of first-degree murder in the death of William McLaughlin and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, rejecting challenges to the grand jury's legality, the jury instructions on lesser offenses and mental
• Coffman v. United States
  290 F.2d 212· 10th Cir.· 1961-04-28 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its instructions regarding insanity and that the issue of competency at the time of trial was properly resolved prior to trial. The government met its burden of proving the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense.
• Bradley v. United States
  447 F.2d 264· 8th Cir.· 1971-08-31 ·cited 39×
  A threat to use a simulated bomb, lacking objective capacity to cause harm, is insufficient to sustain a conviction for aggravated robbery and assault under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(d).
• United States v. Andrew
  666 F.2d 915· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-01 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in restricting cross-examination.
• McMAHAN v. Hunter
  150 F.2d 498· 10th Cir.· 1945-07-21 ·cited 38×
  A writ of habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge the validity of sentences that the petitioner is not currently serving.
• Brown v. State
  40 Fla. 459· Fla.· 1898-06-01 ·cited 38×
  T. Ben Brown was convicted of manslaughter in the murder of John S. Weir and appealed, challenging five trial court rulings regarding jury selection, witness examination, and jury instructions on the insanity defense. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no
• Blocker v. State
  92 Fla. 878· Fla.· 1926-11-12 ·cited 35×
  L.S. Blocker was convicted of murder in the second degree after his first conviction for first-degree murder was reversed due to errors in the jury charge on insanity. On appeal from the second conviction, Blocker challenged the admissibility of expert testimony and the jury inst
• Johnson v. State
  57 Fla. 18· Fla.· 1909-01-01 ·cited 34×
  Adam Johnson was convicted of murder in 1908 for a homicide allegedly committed in 1900. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court erred by admitting an inadmissible certificate regarding Johnson's mental status at the time of d
• Riley I. Gillihan v. Rodriguez
  551 F.2d 1182· 10th Cir.· 1977-02-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel, nor were his constitutional rights violated by the imposition of the death penalty or consecutive sentences, and affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief.
• United States v. Hedges
  458 F.2d 188· 10th Cir.· 1972-03-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for attempted escape and conveyance of a dangerous instrumentality was supported by sufficient evidence and that no prejudicial errors occurred during the trial.
• Junius C. Thomson v. State
  78 Fla. 400· Fla.· 1919-11-10 ·cited 32×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a first-degree murder conviction because the evidence presented a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's sanity at the time of the homicide. The court emphasized that if such doubt exists, the jury must acquit.