People v. Hoxie

Defendant pleaded “not guilty” and “not guilty by reason of insanity” to an information charging him Avith three violations of section 217 (assault with intent to commit murder) of the Penal Code. After a nonjury trial he was found guilty and legally sane at the time of the commission of the offenses.

On appeal the only contention made by privately retained counsel is that the evidence does not support the implied finding that defendant had the mental capacity to intend to commit murder. Defendant has filed a supplemental brief in propria persona in which he contends that the evidence showed, as a matter of law, that he was insane at the time of the commission of the offenses and at his trial.

The evidence is grotesque. On the day of the alleged crimes, September 10, 1965, defendant, who lived without family in a single-family residence located in a highly respectable neighborhood, got into some kind of argument with a young man whom he had recently hired as a chauffeur. The young man

At one point defendant was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon and when his attorney came to see him in jail he carried on a "tirade concerning the alleged mistreatment by the police.” He described the officers as brutal, uneducated, crude and uncouth. He considered policemen as inferiors, gestapo-like characters. The attorney was unable to substantiate his client’s charges against the police.

Doctor Manley testified that none of defendant’s fears had any basis in fact. On several occasions the police had been called by him when defendant, at all hours of the night, sometimes accompanied by others, had come to his house threatening to "fix” him.

Defendant’s Expert Testimony.

Doctor Seymour Pollock—direct examination: Before testifying the doctor spent about five hours with defendant. He reviewed the medical history provided by Doctor Hacker and the reports of Doctors Thompson and Abe. He also reviewed statements by various witnesses. In his opinion Hoxie "did not fully understand the nature and quality of his acts at the time of the event on September 10, 1965, or understand their wrongfulness. ’ ’

Cross-examination: The particular mental illness from which defendant suffered was "schizophrenic reaction, a psychotic reaction.” When he was shooting at the officers he knew to a degree that they were police officers "but did not understand their role, their function, their relationship to him ...” He did not appreciate that they had come to take him into custody because he had committed a wrong. He was aware that he was hurting people by his shooting. In talking about the police officers he referred to them mostly as "men in black.” Defendant was, in brief, "misinterpreting” what was going on. His appreciation of the world about him, of the people and events, was not the kind of understanding that is present in the average reasonable man. He believed there was a plot against him. To him a policeman was not a person protecting him, but someone who had been paid off by the Mafia and was in some way interested in hurting him. "He didn’t see the policemen in the same way that I or another person not suffering from this problem saw the policemen. He

Redirect examination: The witness did not think that Hoxie had feigned insanity when he interviewed him, but suspected that he was feigning sanity at the trial.

Doctor Frederick Hacker—direct examination : He had first seen Hoxie in a professional capacity in 1951. His mental condition had become an issue at that time because he had taken two shots at his father. Hoxie had been under the care of Doctor Hacker and his staff, off and on from 1951 until March 1965. In July 1965 Doctor Hacker saw Hoxie at the St. Francis Hospital. Within two weeks after the shooting he saw him again on four different occasions. In the doctor’s opinion Hoxie was “laboring under a number of delusions and hallucinations, and was totally incapable of appreciating the nature and consequences of his acts. ’ ’

Cross-examination: He had formed an opinion that Hoxie was “highly upset, psychotic and dangerous” in July 1965 and so reported to Hoxie’s attorney. He advised commitment, but did not determine whether the attorney had acted on his advice. He himself took no steps to commit Hoxie. His diagnosis of Hoxie was “schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type.” He was suffering from delusions “just like the original M’Naughten.” Just because an individual suffers from paranoid schizophrenia does not necessarily mean that he is unaware of the nature and consequences of his acts. Whether or not such an individual is legally insane depends on whether his delusions refer to his act.

People’s Expert Testimony.

Doctor George N. Thompson—direct examination: He

Cross-examination: The doctor’s opinion was based on his interview and a study of the transcript of the preliminary examination. The interview lasted over an hour. He too believed that Hoxie suffered from “schizophrenia, paranoid type.” It is characteristic of the disease that the patient develops delusions and hallucinations. “The delusions are quite tightly systematized, usiially relating to specific individuals or objects, and the hallucinations, when they occur— and they do not always occur—usually correspond in nature to the delusions. ’ ’

When asked in great detail whether he had been made aware of Hoxie’s peculiar behavior and statements in the months before the shooting and during the shooting, the witness replied in the negative. Nevertheless these matters would not have altered his opinion, they would have supported it.

Doctor George Y. Abe—direct examination-. His testimony was based on a single interview Avith Hoxie on November 29, 1965, plus an examination of the transcript of the preliminary hearing. In his opinion Hoxie appreciated the nature and quality of his acts and knew the difference between right and wrong. He was aware of the fact that his victims were police officers who had gone to his house “in response to their duty. ’ ’

Cross-examination: He too diagnosed Hoxie’s illness as a “schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type.” There were delusions in regard to Doctor Manley and a Mr. Donahue. His opinion could have been more valid had he been able to

Redirect examination-. Anybody who customarily performs antisocial acts is immature.

Discussion:

If we understand the psychiatric testimony correctly it amounts to this: all four psychiatrists agree that defendant suffered from a mental illness. All were fully aware that mental illness did not automatically amount to legal insanity. There was even a remarkable area of agreement concerning the type of mental illness from which defendant suffered, but the doctors differed in their views concerning the relationship between the illness and the acts done by defendant on September 10, 1965. Doctors Pollock and Hacker thought that in shooting at the police officers defendant acted within the pattern of his delusions—he was protecting himself from those who were persecuting him. On the other hand, Doctors Thompson and Abe—particularly Doctor Thompson—were of the opinion that his resistance to the arrest was not part of the delusional pattern, but that he thought he was doing just what he was doing—-resisting an arrest for the perfectly natural reason that he did not want to go to jail. The “tightly systematized” delusions did not cover the shootings.

The trial court chose to go along with the People’s experts. We have no right to touch its finding of legal sanity.

The exact nature of the specific state of mind necessary for murder in either degree—other than felony murder or murder by poison, lying in wait or torture—had been a fuzzy area in our law until the Supreme Court decided People v. Holt, 25 Cal.2d 59 [ 153 P.2d 21 ], (See Pike, What is Second Degree Murder in California? 9 So.Cal.L.Rev. 112.) Holt was soon followed by People v. Thomas, 25 Cal.2d 880 [ 156 P.2d 7 ] and People v. Bender, 27 Cal.2d 164 [ 163 P.2d 8 ], In those three decisions the Supreme Court attempted to draw a line between a homicide which follows deliberation and premeditation—murder in the first degree—and a killing preceded merely by a specific intent to kill. For the purposes of this opinion the most significant passage is perhaps one in People v. Thomas: ‘ ‘ The attorney general contends that ‘ the presence of proof of specific intent distinguishes murder in the first degree from murder in the second degree. If the proof shows specific intent, it is murder in the first degree, and not murder in the second degree. Specific intent is deliberate intent’ and that “Malice aforethought” is synonymous with “deliberation and premeditation,” citing People v. Watts (1926) 198 Cal. 776 , 800-801 [ 247 P. 844 ]. Such contention cannot be sustained. (See People v. Holt (1944) supra, ante, pp. 59, 70, 87, 88.) To support it would belie any difference in the plain import of the words ‘ specific ’ and ‘ deliberate ’ and would emasculate the statutory difference between first and second degree murder. The word ‘specific’ (adjective) means ‘Precisely formulated or restricted; . . . definite, . . . explicit; of an exact or particular nature’ (Webster’s New Int. Dict. (2d ed.)) while ‘deliberate’ (as an adjective) means ‘formed, arrived at, or determined upon as a result of careful thought and weighing of considerations; as, a deliberate judgment or plan; carried on cooly and steadily, esp. according to a preconceived design; . . . Given to weighing facts and arguments with a view to a choice or decision; careful in considering the consequences of a step; . . . Slow in action ; unhurried; . . . Characterized by reflection; dispassionate;

Yet a finding that mental sickness prevents mature and meaningful deliberation and premeditation certainly does not exclude a further finding that it also affects the intent to kill to such an extent that even a conviction of second degree murder must be modified or set aside altogether. The eases reversing convictions for inadequate instructions demonstrate that the jury must be given an opportunity to reach a verdict which does not imply the finding of any specific intent.

The reason for the Supreme Court’s obvious reluctance to go further under section 1181, subdivision 6 cannot be that none of the defendants asked for more than they got: we have examined the written record in all four cases and it appears that in at least one of them—Goedeclce—defendant did not even suggest a modification under the section, but sought reversal on other grounds. Thus, since the Supreme Court apparently acted on its own initiative, it surely would have gone further had it thought it was appropriate to do so.

The exact reason why undisputed mental illness appears to negative deliberation and premeditation as a matter of law, but does not so affect a less complex specific intent, will have to be stated by the Supreme Court. On our part, we are satisfied that, had defendant killed one of his victims and been convicted of second degree murder, the Supreme Court would not modify the judgment.

The last contention is again defendant’s own: that he was insane at the time of the trial, a contention which, we assume, includes a subsidiary point: that, at least, there should have been a hearing on his present sanity. He could not have known when he filed his own brief on April 13, 1967 that this then apparently frivolous point would gain some stature two weeks later when the Supreme Court filed People v. Pennington, 66 Cal.2d 508 [ 58 Cal.Rptr. 374 , 426 P.2d 942 ], Nevertheless we are persuaded that the point has no merit.

There are altogether three isolated references in the record to defendant’s sanity at the time of the trial: the first is Doctor Pollock’s statement that he suspected that Hoxie was “feigning sanity now.” The second is a statement by the trial court after a brief discussion of his findings on defendant’s mental capacity: “I’m also persuaded that he is not legally insane within the meaning of the criminal law. He is

In People v. Pennington, supra, defendant had pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. During the early stages of the trial defendant started to interrupt the proceedings in various ways. Twelve days after the start of the trial defense counsel moved for a hearing on the issue of Pennington’s present sanity under the provisions of section 1368 of the Penal Code. In support of that motion he submitted the affidavit of a clinical psychologist who had examined Pennington and in whose opinion he was then insane. Defense counsel also represented to the court that Pennington was unable to cooperate with Mm. During the argument on the motion Pennington again interrupted the proceedings and had to be gagged. The motion was denied. On the following day defense counsel offered more evidence of Pennington’s present insanity. The court announced that it had no doubt of defendant’s sanity and that it had reached this lack of doubt on the basis of its own observations and the reports of four court-appointed psychiatrists.

Under the compulsion of Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 [ 15 L.Ed.2d 815 , 86 S.Ct. 836 ], our Supreme Court overruled People v. Merkouris, 52 Cal.2d 672 [ 344 P.2d 1 ] and held that the trial judge was no longer permitted to resolve conflicting evidence against the harboring of a doubt. “Pate v. Robinson stands for the proposition that an accused has a constitutional right to a hearing on present sanity if he comes forward with substantial evidence that he is incapable, because of mental illness, of understanding the nature of the proceedings against him or of assisting in his defense. Once such substantial evidence appears, a doubt as to the sanity of the accused exists, no matter how persuasive other evidence—testimony of prosecution witnesses or the court’s own observations of the accused—may be to the contrary.

“ When the evidence casting doubt on an accused’s present sanity is less than substantial, People v. Merkouris, supra, 52 Cal.2d 672 , 678-679, correctly states the rules for application of section 1368 of the Penal Code. Whether to order a present sanity hearing is for the discretion of the trial judge, and only where a doubt as to sanity may be said to appear as a matter of law or where there is an abuse of discretion may the trial judge’s determination be disturbed

In the case at bar all we have is Doctor Pollock’s answer. That answer was obviously not directed to the relevant criterion under section 1368 of the Penal Code, that is to say whether Hoxie was able to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings taken against him and to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner, (People v. Pennington, supra ; People v. Brock, 57 Cal.2d 644 , 648-649 [ 21 Cal.Rptr. 560 , 371 P.2d 296 ].) That test is quite different from that under the M’Naughton rule to which the doctor was addressing himself. (People v. Brock, supra, p. 648.)

At his trial defendant was represented by prominent, privately retained counsel who at no time raised any question of defendant’s ability to understand what was going on and to assist in the conduct of the defense. The evidence of insanity at the time of trial was not substantial.

The judgment is affirmed.

Hufstedler, J., and Stephens, J., concurred.