Presumption Of Sanity

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

• United States v. Lawrance
  480 F.2d 688· 5th Cir.· 1973-06-25 ·cited 30×
  The admission of evidence of prior similar heroin sales was reversible error because knowledge and intent were not essential elements of the charged offenses, rendering the evidence irrelevant for the purpose it was admitted.
• Doyle v. United States
  366 F.2d 394· 9th Cir.· 1966-08-29 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendant was entitled to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 because his right to appeal was frustrated by his counsel's erroneous advice and the trial court's improper jury instruction on insanity constituted reversible error.
• United States v. Cain
  298 F.2d 934· 7th Cir.· 1962-01-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court applied a proper test for mental competency and that the evidence supported the finding of guilt for attempted income tax evasion.
• Hartford v. United States
  362 F.2d 63· 9th Cir.· 1966-05-11 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's finding of legal sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Rivers v. United States
  270 F.2d 435· 9th Cir.· 1959-09-09 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting gruesome photographs of the victim's dismembered body and in its jury instructions regarding the presumption of sanity.
• United States v. Hall
  583 F.2d 1288· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence of the defendant's sanity to allow the case to go to the jury, despite the defendant's expert testimony of insanity due to alcohol deterioration.
• Davis v. United States
  364 F.2d 572· 10th Cir.· 1966-08-17 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court erred by instructing the jury that they could decide whether the presumption of sanity had been overcome by evidence of insanity.
• Byrd v. State
  178 So. 2d 886· Fla. 2d DCA· 1965-09-24 ·cited 26×
  James Robert Byrd was charged with assault with intent to commit murder and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. Though committed to a state hospital as insane in 1961, he was declared mentally competent in 1964 and tried. The jury found him guilty of the assault, rejecting
• Wells v. State
  98 So. 2d 795· Fla.· 1957-12-11 ·cited 26×
  Willie Andrew Wells was convicted of murdering his wife and sentenced to death. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the presumption of insanity arising from Wells' 1937 judicial adjudicati
• Norman v. State
  156 So. 2d 186· Fla. 3d DCA· 1963-09-10 ·cited 25×
  Richard Norman was convicted of two counts of murder in the second degree for killing his wife and her paramour at a motel after discovering them together. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred by excluding
• Hopkins v. United States
  275 F.2d 155· D.C. Cir.· 1959-12-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was sane, given the substantial evidence of her mental disease.
• Howard v. United States
  229 F.2d 602· 5th Cir.· 1956-02-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court's jury charge on the insanity defense was proper and accurately stated the law regarding criminal responsibility.
• Farrell v. State
  101 So. 2d 130· Fla.· 1958-03-12 ·cited 23×
  Walter Farrell was convicted of second-degree murder after being tried for first-degree murder. The Florida Supreme Court reversed his conviction, finding that uncontradicted expert testimony regarding his mental insanity at the time of the offense raised a reasonable doubt that
• United States v. Harold Glickman aka Hal Glickman
  604 F.2d 625· 9th Cir.· 1979-09-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the government met its burden to produce an informant and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or instructing the jury, affirming the convictions.
• United States v. Sennett
  505 F.2d 774· 7th Cir.· 1974-11-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that referring to a presumption of sanity in jury instructions is not reversible error when the jury is otherwise properly instructed on the government's burden of proof regarding insanity, and other trial errors were not prejudicial.
• United States v. Cooper
  465 F.2d 451· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-12 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the government failed to prove the defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt when the expert testimony supporting insanity was not sufficiently impeached and the affirmative evidence of sanity was inadequate.
• Knaubert v. Goldsmith
  791 F.2d 722· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-09 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the habeas corpus petition or denying the motion for appointment of counsel, as the petitioner's claims were either procedurally barred, fairly adjudicated in state court, or did not warrant federal intervention.
• United States v. Crews
  781 F.2d 826· 10th Cir.· 1986-01-09 ·cited 20×
  The court held that when a threat against the President is made in a context unlikely to reach the President or his protectors, the government must prove the defendant's actual intent to carry out the threat.
• United States v. Bendicks
  449 F.2d 313· 5th Cir.· 1971-10-20 ·cited 20×
  A valid guilty plea waives all non-jurisdictional defects in prior proceedings, including the defense of insanity.
• Brady v. State
  190 So. 2d 607· Fla. 3d DCA· 1966-10-11 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for mistrial, refusing to charge the jury on the circumstantial evidence rule for insanity, or denying a directed verdict on insanity.
• Evans v. State
  140 So. 2d 348· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-04-27 ·cited 20×
  The court held that testimony regarding psychological normality is inadmissible to prove legal insanity under Florida's 'right and wrong' test.
• Perry v. State
  143 So. 2d 528· Fla. 2d DCA· 1962-07-20 ·cited 19×
  Virginia Perry appealed her second-degree murder conviction following the fatal shooting of her former intimate partner, arguing she was legally insane at the time of the killing due to conversion hysteria. The Florida appellate court affirmed her conviction, holding that even if
• Blocker v. State
  87 Fla. 128· Fla.· 1924-02-14 ·cited 19×
  L. S. Blocker was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment after asserting an insanity defense. The Florida Supreme Court reversed because the trial court gave contradictory and prejudicial jury instructions on the burden of proof for the insanity defen
• Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Parry Bellott
  495 F.2d 1393· 3d Cir.· 1974-03-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instruction improperly placed the burden of proof on the defendant regarding his mental capacity, and that the government bears the burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt once evidence of mental illness is presented.
• United States v. Skinner
  437 F.2d 164· 5th Cir.· 1971-01-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the jury instructions erroneously directed a verdict of guilty and improperly applied the presumption of sanity, constituting plain error.
• United States v. Kaufman
  393 F.2d 172· 7th Cir.· 1968-03-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a fourteen-month delay between indictment and arraignment did not violate the appellant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, as the delay was not unreasonable under the circumstances and the appellant failed to show prejudice. The court also affirmed the
• Dukes v. Allie N. Dukes
  346 So. 2d 544· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-09-07 ·cited 17×
  Where a trial court found an insured mentally incompetent at the time of executing a change of beneficiary form based primarily on his post-surgical condition, the appellate court reversed because there was insufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of mental competence; t
• Fisher v. State
  506 So. 2d 1052· Fla. 2d DCA· 1987-03-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motions for judgment of acquittal based on insanity, as the state failed to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt after the defense presented sufficient evidence of insanity.
• United States v. Phillips
  519 F.2d 48· 5th Cir.· 1975-09-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of sanity and that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in refusing to allow the defendant's attorney to testify.
• United States v. Coleman
  501 F.2d 342· 10th Cir.· 1974-07-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to justify submitting the issue of the defendant's sanity to the jury, despite uncontradicted expert testimony of insanity.
• French v. State
  266 So. 2d 51· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-08-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that there was sufficient competent evidence to support the jury's verdict of sanity, despite conflicting psychiatric testimony.
• United States v. Lutz
  420 F.2d 414· 3d Cir.· 1970-01-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the prosecution sufficiently proved the defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, and the indictment was adequate to charge a violation of the Federal Kidnapping Act.
• Marmion Pollard v. United States
  285 F.2d 81· 6th Cir.· 1960-12-16 ·cited 16×
  The court remanded the case to the District Court to determine the appellant's present sanity and to conduct further proceedings based on that determination, outlining specific procedures for examination, hearings, and potential commitment or release.
• Martin v. Dugger
  686 F. Supp. 1523· S.D. Fla.· 1988-06-01 ·cited 15×
  The court denies the writ of habeas corpus for claims I, III, and IV, finding them procedurally barred or without merit, but orders an evidentiary hearing for claim II regarding competency to be executed.
• State v. McMAHON
  485 So. 2d 884· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-03-26 ·cited 15×
  The State of Florida appeals a trial court's grant of a new trial in a second-degree murder case. The appellate court reverses, holding that the jury's guilty verdict was supported by substantial, competent evidence and the trial judge abused his discretion in granting a new tria
• Walker v. Butterworth
  599 F.2d 1074· 1st Cir.· 1979-06-07 ·cited 15×
  The court held that requiring a defendant to personally exercise peremptory challenges, when sanity is the sole issue and the prosecutor uses this as evidence of sanity, violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
• Camp v. State
  149 So. 2d 367· Fla. 2d DCA· 1963-02-06 ·cited 15×
  Rodney Camp was convicted by jury of breaking and entering with intent to commit rape and sentenced to 6 months to 15 years. On appeal, Camp challenges the verdict by arguing that expert psychiatric testimony established he was insane and unable to distinguish right from wrong at
• STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS RE: CRIM. CASES (SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT NO. 85-2)
  483 So. 2d 428· Fla.· 1986-02-13 ·cited 14×
  The Florida Supreme Court approved a revised standard jury instruction regarding the insanity defense in criminal cases, following its determination in Yohn v. State that the prior instruction 3.04(b) was legally incorrect regarding the state's burden of proof on insanity.
• Walker v. State
  479 So. 2d 274· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-12-06 ·cited 14×
  Harold Walker appealed his convictions for sexual battery on a child, challenging the trial court's refusal to give a jury instruction on the insanity defense. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that sufficient evidence of mental illness was presented to rebut the pres
• United States v. Archer
  450 F.2d 1106· 8th Cir.· 1971-11-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the kidnapping convictions and that the prosecutor's comment was harmless error. The court also held that the defendant's insanity defense did not rebut the presumption of sanity.
• United States v. Stewart
  443 F.2d 1129· 10th Cir.· 1971-06-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence to prove the defendant's criminal responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt, and the tape recording was admissible and relevant.
• Keys v. United States
  346 F.2d 824· D.C. Cir.· 1965-04-29 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions regarding the presumption of sanity, the procedure for polling the jury, or the prosecutor's rebuttal argument, and that the evidence was sufficient for jury determination of criminal responsibility.
• Saliba v. James
  143 Fla. 404· Fla.· 1940-06-18 ·cited 13×
  The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decree that voided transfers of property from an elderly man with diminished mental capacity to the defendants who had confined him and systematically obtained his assets through a fraudulent scheme. The court reduced the attorney'
• Vogel v. Commonwealth OF Pa.
  790 F.2d 368· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the second trial's conviction, reversed due to insufficient evidence of sanity under the law at the time, barred retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause, and that Burks v. United States applies retroactively.
• United States v. Madrid
  673 F.2d 1114· 10th Cir.· 1982-03-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that statements made during a competency examination are admissible on the issue of sanity when the defendant raises an insanity defense and consents to a subsequent examination on sanity by the same psychiatrist. The court also held that evidence of past crimes is
• United States v. Trujillo
  578 F.2d 285· 10th Cir.· 1978-06-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mistrial motions and properly admitted the defendant's medical records.
• United States v. Munz
  542 F.2d 1382· 10th Cir.· 1976-10-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial judge's comments, while unfortunate, were adequately cured by subsequent instructions, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• United States v. Amos Dresser
  542 F.2d 737· 8th Cir.· 1976-10-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the affidavit supporting the search warrant demonstrated sufficient probable cause, and that the evidence presented was adequate to submit the issue of the appellant's sanity to the jury.
• United States v. Jacobs
  473 F.2d 461· 10th Cir.· 1973-02-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on insanity, as the evidence did not support such a defense and voluntary intoxication was not a complete defense.
• United States v. Velasco
  471 F.2d 112· 7th Cir.· 1972-12-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the appellant's motions for acquittal, as the evidence of her insanity was not so overwhelmingly one-sided as to justify taking the issue from the jury.