State v. Jones

664 P.2d 1216 (1983)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Plainclothes officers, drove up to D in an unmarked car. An officer questioned and approached D and D drew a pistol. They struggled when the officer grabbed the gun, and during the struggle, two shots were fired. Help arrived before anyone was hurt. D was charged with second-degree assault while armed with a firearm. D testified that he drew his gun only because the officer, who never identified himself as a police officer, made a motion toward a gun on his hip. The officer conceded that he did not identify himself, and denied making any motion for his gun. The officer testified that D threatened to abduct him and that, when he asked how he could be sure that the gun was loaded, D threatened to shoot him and cocked the gun. D testified that he only intended to hold the officer until help arrived and only threatened to shoot him in the leg if he didn't stay in the car where D had placed him. D testified that the gun went off accidentally. D told a rather unusual story about fearing for his life and planning to seek political asylum in Canada, the court ordered an inquiry into his competency to stand trial. Several psychiatrists, including one retained for the defense, concluded he was competent to stand trial; however, all but one also indicated to the court that they believed D was a paranoid schizophrenic and was insane at the time of the alleged assault. The court found D competent to stand trial. It then considered P's motion that the court enter an NGI plea over D's objection. After hearing argument, the court granted that motion, concluding only that there was a 'strong possibility' that D had a valid insanity defense and that there was a 'substantial danger' he would be convicted if it was not asserted. The court also directed that amicus counsel be appointed to present the insanity defense. The court denied D's motion to bifurcate the trial into a 'guilt' phase and an insanity phase. Amicus counsel called two of the psychiatrists who had examined D to determine his competency, one a state psychiatrist and one the defense psychiatrist. D objected to the latter psychiatrist's testimony on the ground that it was subject to attorney-client privilege, but his objection was overruled. The jury returned a verdict finding that D had committed the acts charged, but was insane at the time. D was committed. D brought this appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed in all respects and D petitioned for review.