United States v. Jay D. Street, III

Sixth Circuit

United States v. Jay D. Street, III

557 F.2d 574, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12456

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJuly 14, 1977

Docket77-5028

StatusPublished

This text of 557 F.2d 574 (United States v. Jay D. Street, III) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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. Jay D. Street, III, 557 F.2d 574, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12456 (6th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from appellant’s conviction for armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) (1970). He received a ten-year sentence.

The facts at trial in relation to the armed robbery were undisputed. Defendant admitted entering the bank, placing a knife at the back of a guard and taking possession of his service revolver and announcing a holdup. He said that he wasn’t going to hurt anybody, but that he needed the money for personal problems.

On this appeal appellant’s present counsel claims that appellant should be entitled to a new trial because 1) his counsel failed to file a proper notice of defense of insanity prior to trial, 2) the circumstances known to the court required the court sua sponte to *575 order a psychiatric examination, and 3) that in any event, the District. Court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on a defense of insanity.

We find no merit to the first and third of the issues stated above.

In relation to the second stated issue, however, in perhaps an excess of caution, we remand the case to the District Court to order a psychiatric examination.

In the event that the psychiatric examination results in no evidence of present mental illness under the rule of United States v. Smith, 404 F.2d 720 (6th Cir. 1968), and no evidence of mental illness at the time of the commission of the crime, the judgment of conviction will stand affirmed. If, on the other hand, the psychiatric examination does develop evidence of mental illness at the time of the commission of the crime or evidence of present mental illness of such probable duration as to date back to the date of the offense, and counsel represents that he intends to rely upon such factors in making a motion for a new trial, said motion for a new trial will be granted. United States v. Taylor, 437 F.2d 371 (4th Cir. 1971).

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from appellant’s conviction for armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d) (1970). He received a ten-year sentence.

The facts at trial in relation to the armed robbery were undisputed. Defendant admitted entering the bank, placing a knife at the back of a guard and taking possession of his service revolver and announcing a holdup. He said that he wasn’t going to hurt anybody, but that he needed the money for personal problems.

On this appeal appellant’s present counsel claims that appellant should be entitled to a new trial because 1) his counsel failed to file a proper notice of defense of insanity prior to trial, 2) the circumstances known to the court required the court sua sponte to *575 order a psychiatric examination, and 3) that in any event, the District. Court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on a defense of insanity.

We find no merit to the first and third of the issues stated above.

In relation to the second stated issue, however, in perhaps an excess of caution, we remand the case to the District Court to order a psychiatric examination.

In the event that the psychiatric examination results in no evidence of present mental illness under the rule of United States v. Smith, 404 F.2d 720 (6th Cir. 1968), and no evidence of mental illness at the time of the commission of the crime, the judgment of conviction will stand affirmed. If, on the other hand, the psychiatric examination does develop evidence of mental illness at the time of the commission of the crime or evidence of present mental illness of such probable duration as to date back to the date of the offense, and counsel represents that he intends to rely upon such factors in making a motion for a new trial, said motion for a new trial will be granted. United States v. Taylor, 437 F.2d 371 (4th Cir. 1971).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

557 F.2d 574, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 12456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-jay-d-street-iii-ca6-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack