United States v. J. D. Collier

453 F.2d 1173
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 4, 1972
Docket71-1901
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 453 F.2d 1173 (United States v. J. D. Collier) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. J. D. Collier, 453 F.2d 1173 (5th Cir. 1972).

Opinions

INGRAHAM, Circuit Judge:

This appeal presents a further opportunity to consider the sufficiency of evidence of insanity as a defense to a criminal prosecution for murder on the high seas, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1111.

The appellant, J. D. Collier, signed on as a member of the crew of a fishing boat, the Isaac S. Boles, operating out of Panama City, Florida. On the morning [1174]*1174of October 14, 1966, the master of the vessel, Clayton Williams, was in the wheelhouse of the vessel. The master’s nephew, Jimmy Hicks, a hand on board the Boles, testified that he saw Collier carrying a cup of coffee in one hand and a knife in the other, and that Collier either fell or lunged into the wheelhouse. Hicks testified that he heard his uncle holler: “Get him off me! He has got a knife.” Before members of the crew could reach the wheelhouse and restrain Collier, his knife had penetrated Williams’ chest causing his death. Collier was then seized by the crew of the Boles and held by them pending the arrival of a United States Coast Guard cutter which had been summoned. Collier was put aboard the cutter, and upon arrival at Panama City, Florida, he was turned over to the FBI.

At the time of the killing Collier had known Williams for one day previous to signing on to the Boles and for four days at sea. He was indicted for the murder of Williams on May 25, 1967.

On October 19, 1966, five days after the events on the Boles, he was examined by a diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry, who evaluated that Collier was then operating under a paranoid delusional pattern and had been so at the time of the killing. In a pretrial order of November 6, 1970, the judge who was to eventually preside over his trial summarized Collier’s subsequent institutional history as follows:

“On May 25, 1967, an indictment was filed against the defendant charging him with a violation of title 18, United States Code, Section 1111, the charge being premeditated murder on the high seas. On June 1, 1967, Court-appointed counsel for the defendant filed motion alleging that the defendant was not mentally competent to understand the proceedings against him or to assist his attorneys in his defense, and requested that the Court appoint two Psychiatrists to examine the defendant prior to the trial for the purpose of determining his mental competency to stand trial. The motion was granted by the Court on June 2, 1967. The defendant was examined by Joseph J. Regan, M.D., a Dipló-mate of the American Board of Psychiatry who rendered his report on August 29, 1967. It was the opinion of Dr. Re-gan that the patient was suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia. In his report Dr. Regan pointed out that the records of the Veterans Administration indicated the same diagnosis as early as the year 1964. It was the opinion of Dr. Regan that a large amount of drugs, mainly mellaral and stelazine should be taken by the patient continually to prevent him from promptly reverting to his psychotic behavior. It was further the opinion of Dr. Regan that the defendant should be institutionalized for a long period of psychiatric treatment.

“On August 4, 1967, the defendant was examined by Dr. Wallace A. Kennedy, a Clinical Psychologist, who, after having examined the defendant, diagnosed defendant’s condition as paranoid schizophrenia.

“On October 9, 1967, this Court inquired into the mental competency of the defendant to stand trial and determined that the defendant was unable to stand trial and he was committed to the custody of the Attorney General under Title 18, United States Code, Section 4246.

“The report of the Medical Center for Féderal Prisoners at Springfield, Missouri, dated December 27, 1967, indicates that the diagnosis on admission was schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type, chronic. It was stated in the report that though it was felt that this chronically mentally ill individual probably understood the nature of the charges against him, the nature of the courtroom procedures, and was able to assist counsel, nevertheless it was the opinion of the Staff Psychiatrist that the disease may be of such significance to interfere with his ability to make sound decisions and to enable him to examine critical material and it was likely that under the stress of adversary proceedings in the courtroom his condition would markedly deteriorate and he [1175]*1175would function at a floridly psychotic level.

“On December 5, 1969, the United States Attorney filed a motion for mental examination to determine whether the defendant was then competent to stand trial and in the motion requested that Philip B. Phillips, M.D., a noted Psychiatrist, be appointed to examine the defendant. An order was entered by this Court on December 5, 1969, for' mental examination of the defendant by Dr. Phillips. Dr. Phillips rendered his opinion after having examined the defendant in which he stated that in his opinion the defendant was continuing to have recurrences of auditory hallucinations in that he continued to hear voices, which voices always threatened the defendant with bodily harm. Dr. Phillips stated that in his experience paranoid schizophrenics are troubled with feelings of persecution, delusions of being attacked and fear of suffering great bodily harm. It was the opinion of Dr. Phillips that if medication was not provided on a permanent basis the defendant would revert into a flagrant psychotic state and it was felt by Dr. Phillips that the defendant was a threat to society and that at the time of the offense he would not be capable of premeditation in the act of murder.

“This Court because of the suggestion in the report of Dr. Phillips that the defendant was mentally competent to understand the proceedings against him and to assist in his defense and that the defendant had sufficient ability to consult with his attorneys, entered an order on May 4, 1970, in which it was held that the defendant was competent to stand trial. Subsequent to the entry of this order the defendant made his second attempt to commit suicide and it was recommended by treating physicians that his medication be increased. In the order of May 4, 1970, this Court had ordered that the case be set for trial during the November, 1970 term of court and that the defendant should be examined by Dr. Phillips within thirty (SO) days prior to trial to determine if at that time the defendant was mentally competent to stand trial.

“The defendant was examined by Dr. Phillips over a period of time and Dr. Phillips rendered his report on October 9, 1970, in which he stated that it was still his opinion that at the time of the incident in which the captain of the ship was allegedly slain by the defendant, that the defendant was in an acute psychotic state and acting on the basis of violent paranoid delusions.

“Prior to the last examination by Dr. Phillips, this Court held a hearing, at which hearing the testimony of Dr. Phillips was taken. It was obviously the opinion of Dr. Phillips that the defendant was chronically ill and that to restrain his psychotic impulses it was necessary that he be given medication constantly.

“After a full review of all of the medical reports and records on file, it is the opinion of the Court that notwithstanding the assertions on the part of the Staff Psychiatrist and Dr. Phillips that the defendant is competent to stand trial, the Court is of the opinion that the defendant is not legally competent to stand trial for the following reasons:

1. The examining physicians are in agreement that the defendant suffers from paranoid schizophrenia.

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

Related

Charles Ray Crawford v. State of Mississippi
192 So. 3d 905 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 2015)
Petric v. People
61 V.I. 401 (Supreme Court of The Virgin Islands, 2014)
State v. Darren Smith
Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1999
United States v. William H. Andrew, Jr.
666 F.2d 915 (Fifth Circuit, 1982)
United States v. Wallace A. Shackelford
494 F.2d 67 (Ninth Circuit, 1974)
United States v. James E. McCracken
488 F.2d 406 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)
United States v. Michael A. S. Makris
483 F.2d 1082 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)
United States v. Harry Wayne Parks
460 F.2d 736 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)
United States v. J. D. Collier
453 F.2d 1173 (Fifth Circuit, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
453 F.2d 1173, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-j-d-collier-ca5-1972.