SCHUMAN M. RIVERS, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the jury was entitled to decide the issue of insanity based on conflicting evidence, and the requested jury instruction on irresistible impulse was properly rejected.
Appellant was convicted of violating federal narcotic laws, with insanity as his defense. Testimony conflicted regarding whether his drug addiction co…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Irresistible Impulse Test cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of violating the federal narcotic laws, 26 U.S.C. § 4704(a) and 21 U.S.C. § 174. His defense was insanity.
Testimony at the trial tended to prove that appellant was a drug addict who also suffered from a mental disease related to the commission of the offenses by reason of his addiction. But there was also significant testimony that he was not suffering from a mental disease related to the offenses. Thus, the issue of insanity was for the jury to decide. Appellant’s contention that his motion for acquittal on the ground of insanity-should have been granted must be rejected.
On the issue of insanity appellant requested an instruction on irresistible impulse; but the requested instruction was in terms which would have placed this issue before the jury as an independently controlling alternative test of mental responsibility, inconsistent with our decision in McDonald v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 120, 124-125, 312 F. 2d 847, 851-852 (1962).
Finding no error in the respects above .discussed, or otherwise, the judgment is
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hansford v. United States, 365 F.2d 920 (D.C. Cir. 1966)
-
Chrisp Heard, Jr. v. United States, 348 F.2d 43 (D.C. Cir. 1964)
-
Castle v. United States, 347 F.2d 492 (D.C. Cir. 1964)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- McDONALD v. United States, 312 F.2d 847 (D.C. Cir. 1962)