People v. Babcock

THOMPSON, J.

The defendant was charged with and convicted of the crime of robbery of the first degree. At the trial he entered a plea of “Not guilty by reason of insanity.” The jury returned a verdict finding that he “was sane at the time of the commission of the offense” with which he was charged. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied. The court determined that his crime was that of robbery of the first degree. He was thereupon sentenced to imprisonment at San Quentin. From the order denying a new trial and the judgment of conviction the defendant has appealed.

It is contended the verdict and judgment are contrary to law and that they are not supported by the evidence.

We are persuaded that, in spite of very convincing evidence of insanity of the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense, this court is bound by the contrary verdict and judgment which were rendered in this case in view of the decisions found in

People

v.

Chamberlain,

7 Cal.2d 257 [60 P.2d 299], and

People

v.

O’Brien,

122 Cal.App. 147 [9 P.2d 902]. In the Chamberlain case three expert medical witnesses and ten non-expert witnesses testified that the defendant was insane when he committed the homicide of which he was convicted. Chamberlain took the witness stand in his own behalf and his evidence strongly corroborated the other witnesses in that regard. There was no direct evidence to the contrary. He was found to be sane. The Supreme Court affirmed the verdict and judgment of sanity in that ease, saying:

“We cannot say that the jury, observing the defendant in these particulars during the trial, with the entire evidence adduced at the trial in their minds, aided by the presumption

[56]

that the defendant was sane, did not have sufficient evidence on which to base the verdict in this case.”