William L. Trest v. United States

D.C. Circuit

William L. Trest v. United States

350 F.2d 794

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedOctober 8, 1965

Docket19228

StatusPublished

Cited by21 cases

This text of 350 F.2d 794 (William L. Trest v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William L. Trest v. United States, 350 F.2d 794 (D.C. Cir. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Although a report from St. Elizabeths Hospital stated that appellant was “suffering from Psychoneurotic Reaction, Obsessive-Compulsive Type (Sexual Deviation)” and that his offenses were “products of this condition,” appellant refused to allow an insanity defense to be made on his behalf. Indeed, the appellant himself addressed the court, insisting that he was not “incompetent.” In detail both lucid and explicit, he offered a quite valid *795 and reasonable explanation for the position he took. On appeal counsel contends that the trial judge should have raised the insanity issue in spite of appellant’s wishes. See Whalem v. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. -, ---, 346 F.2d 812, 818-819 (1965) (en banc); Overholser v. Lynch, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 404, 288 F.2d 388 (1961), reversed on other grounds, 369 U.S. 705, 82 S.Ct. 1063, 8 L.Ed.2d 211 (1962).

We do not think the judge abused his discretion in refusing to raise the issue sua sponte. Appellant had previously been found competent to stand trial, and there is no suggestion that this finding was erroneous. Moreover, whether appellant did in fact commit the criminal act was a closely contested issue during the trial. Introduction of the insanity issue might well have prejudiced his defense on the merits.

We have examined the other points raised on this appeal and found none of them to warrant reversal. The conviction is therefore

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Although a report from St. Elizabeths Hospital stated that appellant was “suffering from Psychoneurotic Reaction, Obsessive-Compulsive Type (Sexual Deviation)” and that his offenses were “products of this condition,” appellant refused to allow an insanity defense to be made on his behalf. Indeed, the appellant himself addressed the court, insisting that he was not “incompetent.” In detail both lucid and explicit, he offered a quite valid *795 and reasonable explanation for the position he took. On appeal counsel contends that the trial judge should have raised the insanity issue in spite of appellant’s wishes. See Whalem v. United States, 120 U.S.App.D.C. -, ---, 346 F.2d 812, 818-819 (1965) (en banc); Overholser v. Lynch, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 404, 288 F.2d 388 (1961), reversed on other grounds, 369 U.S. 705, 82 S.Ct. 1063, 8 L.Ed.2d 211 (1962).

We do not think the judge abused his discretion in refusing to raise the issue sua sponte. Appellant had previously been found competent to stand trial, and there is no suggestion that this finding was erroneous. Moreover, whether appellant did in fact commit the criminal act was a closely contested issue during the trial. Introduction of the insanity issue might well have prejudiced his defense on the merits.

We have examined the other points raised on this appeal and found none of them to warrant reversal. The conviction is therefore

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

350 F.2d 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-l-trest-v-united-states-cadc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack