MILTON SIMONDS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Milton Simonds was convicted of rape, kidnapping, robbery, and entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony after a jury trial. On appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court improperly excluded psychiatric testimony regarding Simonds' insanity defense, violating the defendant's right to present expert evidence on the question of his mental condition at the time of the alleged crimes.
The trial court erred in excluding the psychiatrists' testimony. Expert psychiatric testimony regarding sanity or insanity is admissible and should have been presented to the jury, as juries cannot adequately assess a defendant's mental condition without expert assistance unless the defendant is a raving maniac or complete imbecile.
[1] Expert psychiatric testimony is admissible to assist a jury in determining an issue of sanity or insanity.
[2] A defendant is entitled to present expert psychiatric testimony regarding their mental condition, even if the defendant testifies to the facts forming the basis of the ex…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Unless a person is a raving maniac or complete imbecile, a jury can hardly be deemed competent to reach a satisfactory decision on the question of his mental condition without the aid of expert witnesses. It is accordingly well settled that the opinions of psychiatrists are admissible in evidence on an issue of sanity or insanity.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that expert psychiatric testimony on sanity is admissible and necessary for jury determination of mental condition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSimonds was charged with and tried for rape, kidnapping, robbery, and entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony. He pleaded not guilty …
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 Expert Testimony Admissibility cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Judge.
Appellant/defendant, Milton Simonds, was charged with, and after trial by jury, convicted of rape, kidnapping, robbery and entering without breaking with intent to commit a felony. Appellant had pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity to the said offenses. During the trial, the court allowed the state to examine, outside the presence of the jury, two psychiatrists who had been subpoenaed as defense witnesses. One psychiatrist could not give an opinion of appellant’s sanity at the time of the commission of the alleged offenses. The second psychiatrist testified that the appellant was insane at the time the crimes were allegedly committed and that he suffered some brain damage. After hearing argument of respective counsel for the parties, the trial court sustained the state’s objection to the introduction of the physicians’ testimony for the appellant. The ruling precluded the appellant from introducing and the jury from considering their opinion as to the sanity or insanity of the appellant. We point out that the appellant did take the witness stand and testify in his own behalf during the trial. He testified, inter alia, to the facts which formed the basis of the physicians’ opinions.
The court has granted appellant’s motions to reinstate three previously dismissed appeals pursuant to Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla.1969, 229 So. 2d 239, and consolidated the appeals. The principal issue presented to us here and upon which we decide the case is whether the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of the two psychiatrists the appellant attempted to call as defense witnesses. We answer this issue in the affirmative and hold that the law pronounced in Jones v. State, Fla.1974, 289 So. 2d 725, is controlling here. The supreme court in Jones, supra, held that the psychiatrist should have been allowed to testify as to his opinion, notwithstanding that the defendant did not testify in his own behalf. As the court stated in Jones, supra:
Unless a person is a raving maniac or complete imbecile, a jury can hardly be deemed competent to reach a satisfactory decision on the question of his mental condition without the aid of expert wit nesses. It is accordingly well settled that the opinions of psychiatrists are admissible in evidence on an issue of sanity or insanity. . . . (289 So. 2d 725, 729).
Here the appellant was denied the opportunity of presenting expert testimony as to the defense of insanity. As this court noted in Ross v. State, Fla.App. 1974, 294 So. 2d 663, the best available mechanism for testing whether defendant misled the psychiatrist is intensive cross-examination.
We have considered the several other points raised by appellant, including the contention that he should have been discharged under the Speedy Trial Rule1, and find them to be without merit.
For the reasons stated, the judgments and sentences are reversed and the case remanded for a new trial consistent with this opinion.
. CrPR 3.191(d) (3).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The State of Fla. ex rel. Milton Simonds v. The Honorable W. Troy Hall, Jr., 326 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…l of which may be entirely attributable to relator, the trial court shall set relator’s new trial within thirty days of the date this opinion becomes final. HOBSON, A. C. J., and GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur. . Simonds v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1974, 304 So. 2d 525. . See FAR 4.5c (6). . We hereby recede from any dicta to the contrary in Esperti v. State, Fla.App.2d, 1973, 276 So. 2d 58. . Rubiera v. Dade County ex rel. Benitez, Fla.1974, 305 So. 2d 161. . See RCrP 3.191(a)(1); RCrP 3.191(d) (2) (iv) ; RCr…
-
Godorov v. State, 365 So. 2d 423 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978)…permit defense witnesses to testify as to matters which are the [*424] heart of a defendant’s defense, that error is harmful. Marcum v. State, 341 So. 2d 815 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); Atkinson v. State, 317 So. 2d 807 (Fla.4th DCA 1975); Simonds v. State, 304 So. 2d 525 (Fla.2d DCA 1974). We hold that the pharmacist’s testimony was relevant and that it was error for the lower court to exclude it. The judgment and sentence are set aside and vacated and the case remanded for a new trial. SCHEB, J., concurs. GRIME…
-
State v. Simonds, 316 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 1975)…Certiorari denied. 304 So. 2d 525. ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, OVERTON and ENGLAND, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Baggett v. Louie L. Wainwright, 229 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1969)
- Jones v. State, 289 So. 2d 725 (Fla. 1974)
- Ross v. State, 294 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)