People v. Rogers

THOMPSON (IRA F.), J.

The defendant was charged with grand theft by an information filed by the district attorney. He interposed two pleas, the one not guilty and the other not guilty by reason of insanity. This appeal is from the judgment pronounced upon the verdicts and from an order denying his motion for a new trial, but in fact only involves the trial upon the second plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Without raising a point, but just upon general principles, counsel for appellant first take a few scattering shots at what they term “the anomalous procedure” and then argue as their first reason for a reversal of the judgment' that the testimony is insufficient to support the verdict. All that we need to do is to refer to the testimony which supports the jury’s finding. Dr. E. H. Steele, one of the physicians appointed by the court,- testified that he had made a special study of nervous and mental diseases; that he had made a mental and' physical examination of the defendant; that he “observed him both in the jail, ward 110 of the County Hospital, and in the Psychopathic Ward of the County Hospital”. This witness further testified as follows: “I observed his conduct and took into consideration his conduct as well as his answers to questions, and- he claimed to have no recollection of the charge for which he was arrested, and'could give a very poor history of his past. It was so poor, in fact, that it made me believe that he was trying to avoid giving information about himself. It was found that he had a positive Wasserman of the blood, but he had no physical signs showing that he had syphilis of the nervous system.” He also testified that in his opinion the defendant knew the difference between right and wrong and

[3]

was “not legally insane”; Dr. Charles L. Allen, who it was stipulated had been connected with the lunacy commission of Los Angeles County for several years, also testified that he had made an examination of the defendant’s “nervous functions, and questioned him”; that he “found nothing at the time of” his “examination that would indicate that he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his acts”; that he could distinguish right from wrong and was legally sane. This witness also said that the defendant was “uneducated ... a man of very inferior intelligence”, but that he formed “the opinion that he was simulating insanity, because what he told me sounded so foolish and not in keeping with what a person who is really hallucinating will tell you; more like something a child would tell you when he wanted to make up something”. Again, the doctor said: “He has an intelligence equal to, or greater than that of a child of 12 years.” Another physician attached to the staff of the Norwalk State Hospital, who according to the testimony had made a special study of mental diseases, testified that he had examined the appellant; that in his opinion the defendant was not insane; and that he could understand the difference between right and wrong. When asked why he formed that opinion the doctor replied: “I formed that opinion because I find in the man no evidence of mental disease. I find him able to appreciate the nature and qualities of his acts, weigh the consequences of his acts; I find no evidence, in other words, of mental disease. This man was able to give me a history of his life. He knew where he was. His memory was unimpaired. He was alert, active, had a correct knowledge of his environments; presented nothing which could be construed as delusions of a typical character or any ideas which sometimes motivate the acts of insane people. There was none of that brought forth. Physical examination of the defendant presented no manifestation of disease. For these reasons, I was led to the conclusion that he was not insane.” In addition the gentleman from whose pocket the purse was taken testified that he was jostled while walking down an aisle in the Grand Central Market and that instantly he felt his pocketbook go and grabbed the hand that took it just as it was being passed to a third party; that the defendant was the man who picked his pocket; that he was clean shaven and