People v. Harper

McCOMB, J. Defendant was charged with having committed a robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. Upon arraignment he entered pleas of (1) not guilty and (2) not [345]guilty by reason of insanity. Thereafter by leave of court he withdrew his plea of not guilty, was rearraigned and pleaded guilty as charged in the information. The issue of not guilty by reason of insanity was later tried before a jury which was unable to agree and a mistrial was declared. Upon a second trial the jury found defendant sane at the time of the commission of the offense to which he had pleaded guilty. Judgment and sentence were duly pronounced and defendant has appealed.

Defendant relies for reversal of the judgment on two propositions which will be stated and answered hereunder consecutively :

First: That the evidence does not establish that defendant was sane at the time of the commission of the offense to which he had pleaded guilty for the reason that Doctor Marcus Crahan and Doctor Victor Parkin, duly qualified experts, in giving their opinion that defendant was sane at the time of the commission of the criminal offenses did not take into consideration the fact that defendant had been confined, while he was in the Navy, in a hospital because he was suffering from dementia praecox; and also that they did not take into consideration the records of the United States Public Health Service Hospital which reflected that defendant had also been confined in such hospital suffering from dementia praecox.

This proposition is devoid of merit. Both Dr. Crahan1 and [346]Dr. Parkin2 testified that in forming their opinion they, had taken into consideration the previous confinement of defendant in hospitals because he was suffering from dementia praecox.

Second: That the trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting the prosecution to open and close the trial.

This contention is likewise untenable, for the reason that defendant through his counsel expressly waived any objection which he might have had to .the People’s opening and closing the trial.3

In view of the fact that the record is free of error the judgment is affirmed.