Presumption Of Sanity

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

• Alvord v. Wainwright
  564 F. Supp. 459· M.D. Fla.· 1983-05-05 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a defendant's expressed unwillingness to raise a defense does not absolve counsel of the responsibility to investigate and present that defense, especially when the defense is the only plausible one.
• Flowers v. State
  353 So. 2d 1259· Fla. 3d DCA· 1978-01-17 ·cited 11×
  Defendant Flowers appeals his competency determination, challenging whether the trial judge improperly placed the burden of proving incompetency on him. The Florida District Court of Appeal holds that the presumption of sanity remains throughout competency proceedings and that th
• Wood v. A.L. Lockhart
  809 F.2d 457· 8th Cir.· 1987-01-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the petitioner's claims of trial error, including the admission of testimony, denial of a change of venue, failure to strike biased jurors, and prosecutorial comments, did not rise to the level of a due process violation warranting habeas corpus relief.
• Lentz v. State
  498 So. 2d 986· Fla. 1st DCA· 1986-12-05 ·cited 10×
  Lentz was convicted of attempted first-degree murder and challenged his conviction on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct and improper jury instruction on his insanity defense. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the jury instruction on insanity using on
• Matlock v. Rose
  731 F.2d 1236· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-09 ·cited 10×
  The Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of habeas corpus relief, holding that the district court properly reached the merits of the petitioner's claims despite an unexhausted claim due to futility, and that the claims themselves lacked merit.
• Sirianni v. State
  411 So. 2d 198· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-12-30 ·cited 10×
  Rosemary Sirianni was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for killing Michael G. Armstrong. On appeal, she challenged the trial court's denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence of sanity and the trial court's fa
• Hamp Grace v. Hopper
  566 F.2d 507· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-17 ·cited 10×
  The Court held that Georgia law, which places the burden on the defendant to prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence, is constitutional and consistent with Supreme Court precedent like Leland v. Oregon.
• United States v. Dube
  520 F.2d 250· 1st Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to allow the jury to find the defendant sane beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Ezra Lee Hereden
  464 F.2d 611· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-03 ·cited 10×
  The admission of a psychiatric staff report, even if it mentions competency, does not constitute plain error under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4244 when no separate judicial competency hearing was held. Similarly, a jury instruction on the presumption of sanity is not plain error if it aligns
• United States v. Retolaza
  398 F.2d 235· 4th Cir.· 1968-06-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the search and seizure, as the consent given was voluntary and not coerced.
• Hackworth v. United States
  380 F.2d 19· 5th Cir.· 1967-07-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a state commitment order, even if remote and brief, can be sufficient to rebut the presumption of sanity, but the case should not be reversed on this point due to the brevity of the charge and lack of objection.
• Hurt v. United States
  327 F.2d 978· 8th Cir.· 1964-02-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to admit evidence of a prior adjudication of mental incompetency, as it was relevant to the issue of the appellant's mental state at the time of the offenses.
• Scott v. State
  64 Fla. 490· Fla.· 1912-06-01 ·cited 10×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a first-degree murder conviction because the trial court gave misleading jury instructions regarding the defendant's sanity. The court found that the instructions improperly commented on the weight of non-expert testimony and misstated the law o
• Goewey v. The United States
  612 F.2d 539· Ct. Cl.· 1979-12-12 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the plaintiff was not under a legal disability during the relevant period, and therefore his claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Cook v. State
  271 So. 2d 232· Fla. 2d DCA· 1973-01-05 ·cited 9×
  The court held that conflicting evidence regarding the defendant's sanity at the time of the crime was properly submitted to the jury, and the jury's finding of sanity was supported by the evidence.
• Putnam v. State
  227 So. 2d 60· Fla. 2d DCA· 1969-09-17 ·cited 9×
  Voluntary, un-interrogated statements made by a defendant in custody before receiving Miranda warnings are admissible.
• In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Crim. Cases (NO.2005-5)
  939 So. 2d 1052· Fla.· 2006-09-28 ·cited 8×
  The Florida Supreme Court authorized the publication and use of amended standard jury instructions for criminal cases addressing changes in Florida law regarding the insanity defense, voluntary intoxication, and related matters. The amendments implemented statutory changes enacte
• Wallace v. State
  766 So. 2d 364· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-07-26 ·cited 8×
  Jeffrey Wade Wallace appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and four counts of attempted first-degree murder arising from a shooting at a bar in Key West. The court affirms all convictions, rejecting Wallace's insanity defenses based on the M'Naghten rule and hallucinati
• Milburn v. State
  742 So. 2d 362· Fla. 2d DCA· 1999-08-18 ·cited 8×
  Michael Milburn was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder in the stabbing death of Anna Carter and attack on her daughter. The Florida appellate court reversed his first-degree murder conviction due to prosecutorial errors in closing argument regardin
• Reese v. State
  452 So. 2d 1079· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-07-11 ·cited 8×
• United States v. Portis
  542 F.2d 414· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-24 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court erred by unduly restricting the defendant's ability to present surrebuttal testimony from his psychiatrist, thus denying him a fair trial on his insanity defense.
• United States v. Munz
  504 F.2d 1203· 10th Cir.· 1974-10-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial court's instructions and comments regarding the defendant's mental competency, by focusing on "delusions" rather than the "substantial capacity" standard, prejudiced the defendant and constituted reversible error.
• Erro Sallavirta v. State
  210 So. 2d 487· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-05-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trier of fact was entitled to resolve conflicting evidence regarding the defendant's sanity in favor of sanity.
• ROE v. United States
  325 F.2d 556· 8th Cir.· 1963-12-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a hearing must be held to determine the appellant's mental competency at the time of his guilty plea, as personal observations and medical reports alone are insufficient when the issue is properly raised.
• Dodd v. United States
  222 F.2d 175· 10th Cir.· 1955-04-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the issue of the appellant's mental competency at the time of his guilty plea, having been previously litigated and decided, could not be collaterally attacked.
• Nollie Lee Martin v. Dugger
  515 So. 2d 185· Fla.· 1987-10-28 ·cited 7×
  Nollie Martin, under a death warrant, petitioned for habeas corpus relief and challenged the trial court's dismissal of his motion for a competency-to-be-executed determination. The Florida Supreme Court held that Martin had not waived his competency claim, that the procedures un
• DeFRIEST v. State
  448 So. 2d 1157· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-04-13 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the trial court properly denied an evidentiary hearing on the defendant's motion.
• United States v. Poolaw
  588 F.2d 103· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-16 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury that chronic alcoholism is a mental disease for the purpose of an insanity defense.
• Milani v. United States
  304 F.2d 627· 7th Cir.· 1962-07-02 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to vacate judgment and sentence without ordering production of institutional records.
• Tura Yohn v. State
  450 So. 2d 898· Fla. 1st DCA· 1984-05-23 ·cited 6×
  Tura Yohn appeals her manslaughter conviction, challenging the trial court's refusal to give a special jury instruction stating that the State bears the burden of proving the defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellate court affirms, finding the standard jury inst
• United States v. Schuyler L. Marable
  657 F.2d 75· 4th Cir.· 1981-08-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the government is not obligated to prove a defendant's sanity in its case-in-chief, even if some evidence of insanity is presented, as long as the issue is properly raised by the defense.
• United States v. Iverson
  588 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court properly submitted the issue of insanity to the jury and that the jury instructions were correct.
• United States v. Hite
  461 F.2d 646· 6th Cir.· 1972-06-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion regarding the timing of the psychiatrist's testimony, properly refused a temporary insanity instruction due to lack of a prima facie defense, and that inconsistent jury verdicts on multiple counts of bank robbery
• Mitchell v. State
  104 So. 2d 84· Fla. 2d DCA· 1958-06-25 ·cited 6×
  Cecil Mitchell was convicted of second-degree murder after being charged with first-degree murder. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the conviction, finding that expert testimony of mental illness raised a reasonable doubt about the defendant's sanity at the time of t
• Scott v. United States
  190 F.2d 134· 5th Cir.· 1951-06-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the motion to set aside the default judgment was properly denied because the service of process complied with Mississippi statutes, and even if Catherine Scott was incompetent, the judgment was voidable, not void, and no meritorious defense was shown.
• Heirs of Marion Godwin v. Godwin
  92 Fla. 937· Fla.· 1926-11-22 ·cited 6×
  The appellate court affirmed a lower court's decision that a deed was valid. The heirs of the deceased grantor had challenged the deed, alleging the grantor lacked mental capacity and was unduly influenced. The court found the evidence supported the grantor's mental soundness and
• Auerbach v. State
  273 So. 3d 134· Fla. 3d DCA· 2019-02-20 ·cited 5×
  A trial court must make an independent determination of a defendant's competency based on expert reports and other relevant factors; a mere stipulation by the parties to competency is insufficient. Where a competency hearing is held years before trial with experts who did not exa
• Crockham v. State
  723 So. 2d 355· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-12-23 ·cited 5×
  The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal as there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the appellant failed to present evidence sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as t
• United States v. Samuels
  801 F.2d 1052· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·cited 5×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the defendant was sane at the time he wrote and mailed the threatening letter to the President.
• Pewo v. State
  177 So. 3d 32· Fla. 2d DCA· 2015-09-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the standard jury instruction on insanity does not improperly raise the defense's burden of proof from clear and convincing evidence to beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Bourriague v. State
  820 So. 2d 997· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-06-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge erred by applying the wrong legal standard regarding the burden of proof for insanity, requiring reversal and remand for new trials.
• United States v. Hendrix
  542 F.2d 879· 2d Cir.· 1976-10-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge's instruction on the presumption of sanity, while perhaps not preferable, did not constitute plain error requiring reversal in the absence of an objection, as the jury was unequivocally instructed that the government bore the burden of proving
• United States v. Arroyave
  465 F.2d 962· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instruction on the presumption of sanity was erroneous and could not be considered harmless error.
• United States v. Holt
  450 F.2d 868· 5th Cir.· 1971-11-09 ·cited 4×
  The trial court did not err in refusing to allow the jury to consider the insanity defense because the defendant failed to produce sufficient evidence of a mental disease or defect.
• Robinson v. United States
  420 F.2d 151· D.C. Cir.· 1969-06-12 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, denying the appellant's suggestion for rehearing en banc.
• Warner v. State
  84 So. 2d 314· Fla.· 1955-06-15 ·cited 4×
  Harold Warner was convicted of manslaughter after being indicted for first-degree murder and pleading not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the jury could reasonably believe psychiatric testimony that Warner kn
• Obold v. Obold
  163 F.2d 32· D.C. Cir.· 1947-07-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury's findings regarding the testator's mental competency and proper execution of the will were supported by the evidence and that the trial court did not err in its evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.
• Stanley v. Mabry
  596 F.2d 332· 8th Cir.· 1979-04-18 ·cited 3×
  The court held that requiring a defendant to prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence does not violate due process, even when malice aforethought is an element of the crime.
• Chatman v. State
  199 So. 2d 475· Fla.· 1967-05-03 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the denial of a change of venue, the defendant's competency, and the constitutionality of the murder statute were not grounds for reversal after a voluntary guilty plea.
• Walsh v. State
  751 So. 2d 740· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-02-21 ·cited 2×
  This case clarifies the legal standard for an insanity defense in Florida. The court held that evidence of a mental disorder alone is insufficient to raise reasonable doubt about sanity; the defense must also show the defendant did not understand the nature or wrongfulness of the