Fulcher v. State
633 P.2d 142 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The defense of unconsciousness, or automatism, resulting from a temporary condition such as a concussion without permanent brain damage, is an affirmative defense separate from the defense of insanity or mental deficiency. Evidence supporting this defense may be introduced under a general 'not guilty' plea without the defendant having to plead 'not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency.'
Facts:
- On November 17, 1979, Robert Brian Fulcher consumed seven or eight shots of whiskey at a bar.
- Fulcher claimed he was involved in a fight in the bar's restroom.
- Fulcher testified that the last thing he remembered before waking up in jail was leaving the bar.
- A police officer found Fulcher in an alley with abrasions on his fists and face and arrested him for public intoxication.
- Fulcher was placed in a jail cell with Martin Hernandez, who was lying unconscious on the floor.
- A jailer heard kicking sounds and returned to the cell to observe Fulcher kicking and stomping on Hernandez's head.
- When confronted, Fulcher told the jailer that Hernandez had fallen out of bed.
- Fulcher later saw a doctor who, according to Fulcher's testimony, diagnosed him with a concussion.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Brian Fulcher was charged with aggravated assault in district court.
- At his arraignment, Fulcher initially pleaded 'not guilty by reason of temporary mental illness.'
- After being advised by the trial judge that this plea required commitment for a psychiatric examination, Fulcher withdrew it and entered a plea of 'not guilty.'
- The case was tried in the district court without a jury (a bench trial).
- The district court found Fulcher guilty of aggravated assault.
- Fulcher, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the Wyoming Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a criminal defendant have to plead 'not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency' before introducing evidence of unconsciousness, specifically traumatic automatism caused by a concussion?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brown
No. Evidence of unconsciousness, or automatism, may be presented under a general plea of not guilty and does not require a special plea of 'not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency.' The defense of unconsciousness is a complete defense, separate and distinct from the defense of insanity. Insanity concerns a disease of the mind affecting the ability to distinguish right from wrong, whereas automatism involves performing complex actions without conscious will or knowledge. The consequences of these defenses differ significantly; an acquittal for unconsciousness leads to outright release, while an acquittal for insanity often results in commitment to a mental institution. To merge the two defenses would create anomalies, such as having no defense for a sane but automatistic defendant or inappropriately committing someone with a temporary physical injury to a mental hospital. Although the evidence of automatism was admissible, the conviction is affirmed because the trial judge, as the trier of fact, was not bound to accept the expert's testimony and there was other credible evidence suggesting Fulcher was conscious and aware of his actions.
Concurring - Justice Raper
I concur in affirming the conviction but disagree with the majority's reasoning. The expert testimony regarding Fulcher's alleged unconsciousness should have been deemed inadmissible. The Wyoming statute defines 'mental deficiency' to include 'brain damage,' and Fulcher's own expert testified his condition was a concussion, which is a form of brain damage. Therefore, his defense falls squarely within the statute which requires a plea of 'not guilty by reason of mental illness or deficiency' for such evidence to be admitted. By withdrawing that plea to avoid a mandatory examination, Fulcher forfeited his right to present this evidence. The majority creates a judicial exception that is not found in the plain language of the statute, undermining the important public policy of ensuring impartial expert evaluation for mental state defenses. The conviction should be affirmed because the trial judge presumably disregarded the inadmissible evidence.
Concurring - Justice Rooney
I concur with Justice Raper's opinion and write separately to emphasize a dangerous result of the majority opinion. The majority's decision will likely lead to the defense of 'unconsciousness' being raised in almost every case where a defendant pleads 'not guilty.' This creates a risk of returning to a system where expert opinions are tailored to serve one side of a case, undermining the purpose of the statute which requires impartial, court-ordered examinations for mental deficiency defenses.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant distinction in Wyoming criminal law between the defenses of insanity and automatism (unconsciousness). By allowing automatism caused by a temporary physical condition to be raised under a general 'not guilty' plea, the court creates a separate path for defendants to negate criminal intent without being subjected to the procedural requirements of an insanity plea, such as mandatory commitment for psychiatric evaluation. The decision provides defendants with greater flexibility in presenting defenses related to mental state. However, the strong concurrences highlight a direct conflict with the plain statutory language defining 'mental deficiency' as including 'brain damage,' raising serious policy concerns that this new distinction could be abused by defendants seeking to avoid impartial mental examinations, potentially leading to future legal challenges and legislative clarification.
