 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
Fulcher v State
S. Ct. Wyoming, 1981
Author:- Sam Biers
Relevant Facts: Df consumed seven or eight shots of whiskey over a period of four hours in a Torrington bar, and had previously had a drink at home. Df claims he got in a fight in the bar restroom, then left the bar to find a friend. According to his testimony, the last thing he remembers until awakening in jail, is going out of the door at the bar. Df was placed in a cell with one Martin Hernandez who was lying unconscious on the floor of the cell. The jailer heard a kicking sound, and noticed Df standing near victim, after leaving the kicking sound resumed, and he observed appellant kicking and stomping on Hernandez's head. Df first entered a plea of "not guilty by reason of temporary mental illness." Upon being advised by the trial judge that he would have to be committed for examination he withdrew that plea and entered a plea of not guilty.
Legal Issue(s): Whether trial court properly received and considered evidence of unconsciousness absent plea of not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency?
Court’s Holding: Yes, It is not necessary for a defendant to plead "not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency" before evidence of unconsciousness can be presented.
Procedure: Defendant was convicted in the District Court, J., of aggravated assault without dangerous weapon, and he appealed. Affirmed by App. Ct and S. Ct.
Law or Rule(s): Unconsciousness or automatism, is a complete defense to the criminal charge, separate and apart from the defense of insanity; that it is an affirmative defense and the burden rests with the defendant, unless it arises out of the State’s own evidence.
Court Rationale: Actions performed in a state of unconsciousness are involuntary, thus a person who acts automatically does so without intent, exercise of free will, or knowledge of the act. If df is allowed to use this defense under a guilt by reason of insanity he will be committed. If df is not allowed to use the defense he could face prison.
Unconsciousness resulting from a concussion with no permanent brain damage is an affirmative defense separate from the defense of not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency. The dr. testified he could not state that the character of the act was devoid of criminal intent b/c of the mind alteration. Df never overcame the presumption of mental competency.
Plaintiff’s Argument: Df failed to overcome evidence that he possessed required mental state for aggravated assault. [purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causes injury under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.]
Defendant’s Argument: Trial ct should have received evidence of unconsciousness as a complete defense under not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency.