Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
An informant introduced D to undercover agents and D sold heroin to them. A second transaction took place. D was arrested and admitted taking part in the transactions. But he testified that he was merely a conduit being used by the informant to pass the brown paper packages to the undercover agents. D claimed that the money was not his to keep, but was turned over to the informant who had furnished him in each instance with the brown paper bag. D was tried without a jury and found guilty of two counts of selling narcotics. D denied commission of the substantive offense and his principal defense was that he did not possess sufficient capacity to be held responsible for his criminal acts. D also alleged that he lacked capacity to commit the offense. An expert witness, Dr. Herman Denber, testified that D was not only a narcotics addict but also a confirmed alcoholic. The Doctor noted that D's body had become accustomed to the consumption of large amounts of heroin over a fourteen-year period and that D was in the habit of drinking one or two bottles of wine daily to increase the potency of the narcotics. In addition, he observed, D regularly imbibed six to nine 'shots' of whiskey each day. D also suffered from frequent episodes of toxic psychosis leading to a clouding of the sensorium (inability to know what one is doing or where one is) as well as delusions, hallucinations, epileptic convulsions and, at times, amnesia. The witness testified, moreover, that D had suffered 'knock-outs' on three occasions while engaging in prizefighting, and that these had led to a general vagueness about details. The Dr. initially averred that D was incapable of knowing right from wrong, even under a strict interpretation of that limited test. However, upon amplifying this conclusion, the defense expert acknowledged that D had an awareness of what he was doing on the nights of June 24 and August 1 in the sense that he possessed cognition that he was selling heroin. The government expert testified that D was able to distinguish right from wrong despite heavy alcohol and narcotic usage in that he was fearful of being caught when he suggested the sale take place in the privacy of the men's room at a bar. Competency to stand trial was raised. D was determined to be suffering from 'Dulling Organicity.' But the conclusion was that D could understand the nature of the charges against him or to assist in his own defense. The District Court rejected this argument under M'Naghten; at the time of the committing act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect in reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong. D appealed in that a test less rigid than M'Naghten should have been applied.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co