Home/Arizona Supreme Court/State v. Alford

State v. Alford

403 P.2d 806, 98 Ariz. 249, 1965 Ariz. LEXIS 268
Arizona Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1965·No. 1435·Published·Cited by 14 cases

Opinion

BERNSTEIN, Justice. •

In his motion for rehearing appellant calls our attention to a reference which we made: “A plea of not guilty by reason of insanity”. This statement may be misleading. Despite the title to Rule 192, Rules of Criminal Procedure, “Plea of not guilty by reason of insanity * * * ” there is no such separate plea. The pleas permitted are listed in Rule 178, Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the only pleas that cover all facts in issue are “guilty” and “not guilty”. The proper forms for these pleas are given in Rule 179, Rules of Criminal Procedure. The rule in the case of Leonard v. State, 17 Ariz. 293, 151 P. 947, that in a prosecution for homicide, defendant, under the general plea of not guilty, may set up the defense of insanity, alibi and self-defense has not been changed by the adoption of the Rules of Criminal Pror cedure. If notice of intention to introduce evidence of insanity is given under Rule 192, the court must permit the introduction of such evidence by the defense. If no' such notice is given, it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to - decide whether evidence touching on insanity will be allowed. State v. Reid, 87 Ariz. 123, 348 P.2d 731.

Appellant here followed the procedure appropriate to protect all his rights. On July 30, 1963 he entered a plea of “not guilty”. On September 19, 1963 he filed his notice of intention under Rule 192 to show evidence of insanity. The plea of not guilty was withdrawn on September 20, 1963, and a plea of guilty entered. The effect of the plea of guilty is the same as if the appellant had been tried before a jury and had been found guilty upon evidence covering all material facts, including the facts relating to insanity. State v. Buckmaster, 94 Ariz. 314, 383 P.2d 869; State v. Anderson, 96 Ariz. 123, 392 P.2d 784. After the plea of .guilty, was entered no further action with regard to the notice of intent filed under Rule 192 was necessary.

*251 The matters discussed herein, however, do not affect the conclusion reached in our prior decision.

The motion for a rehearing is denied.

LOCKWOOD, C. J., STRUCKMEYER, V. C. J., and UDALL and McFARLAND, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. Alford, 403 P.2d 806, 98 Ariz. 249, 1965 Ariz. LEXIS 268 (Ark. 1965).

403 P.2d 806 (State v. Alford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Hurles
914 P.2d 1291 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1996)
State v. Starks
512 P.2d 37 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1973)
State v. Parker
505 P.2d 1095 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1973)
State v. Ortiz
492 P.2d 397 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1972)
Frank A. Eyman, Superintendent, Arizona State Penitentiary v. Robert Alford
448 F.2d 306 (Ninth Circuit, 1971)
State v. Kennedy
472 P.2d 59 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1970)
State v. Griswold
457 P.2d 331 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1969)
Department of Liquor Control v. Santucci
246 N.E.2d 549 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1969)
State v. Jennings
448 P.2d 59 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1969)
Cuzick v. State
421 P.2d 537 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1966)
State v. Dodd
418 P.2d 571 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1966)
State v. Janovic
417 P.2d 527 (Arizona Supreme Court, 1966)