People v. Cox
67 Cal. App. 2d 166, 153 P.2d 362, 1944 Cal. App. LEXIS 1290 (1944)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant who enters a plea of not guilty is entitled to present evidence and receive jury instructions on the defense of unconsciousness when there is a factual basis for the claim, as this defense is distinct from the defense of insanity.
Facts:
- Charles Clauson, his son Lee Clauson, and Jack Houser went to defendant Kelley's bar after closing time.
- Kelley let them inside for drinks, and an argument ensued over payment.
- The argument escalated into a physical fight, during which Lee Clauson and Kelley scuffled on the floor.
- During the altercation, Kelley was struck on the head with a bottle, causing significant bleeding and injury.
- The Clausons and Houser exited the bar and were on the sidewalk.
- Kelley retrieved his revolver from the kitchen area of the bar.
- Kelley followed the Clausons outside and stood near the doorway.
- Kelley then fired his revolver, killing Charles Clauson and wounding Lee Clauson.
Procedural Posture:
- The defendant, Kelley, was charged by information with one count of murder and one count of assault with a deadly weapon.
- Kelley entered a plea of 'not guilty' to both charges.
- At trial, the court refused to admit evidence and rejected proposed jury instructions regarding Kelley's claim of unconsciousness from a head injury.
- A jury found Kelley guilty of second-degree murder and assault with a deadly weapon.
- Kelley appealed the judgment of conviction to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant who pleads not guilty, but not not guilty by reason of insanity, precluded from introducing evidence and receiving jury instructions that they were unconscious at the time of the alleged crime due to a traumatic head injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Griffin, J.
No. A defendant is not precluded from raising the defense of unconsciousness under a 'not guilty' plea. The defense of unconsciousness, where a person commits an act without being conscious thereof, is separate and distinct from the defense of insanity. The trial court mistakenly believed that evidence of traumatic amnesia could only be raised under a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. The court reasoned that Penal Code § 26, subdivision 5, establishes unconsciousness as a complete defense, and unlike insanity, it does not require a special plea. Because the defendant presented substantial evidence that he suffered a severe head injury and had no memory of the shooting, he was entitled to present evidence on this defense and have the jury instructed on its legal effect. The trial court's refusal to do so constituted prejudicial error.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical distinction between the legal defenses of insanity and unconsciousness (automatism). It establishes that unconsciousness resulting from a cause other than voluntary intoxication, such as a traumatic head injury, is a complete defense that can be raised under a general 'not guilty' plea. This decision is significant because it allows a defendant to argue they lacked the requisite mental state for a crime due to a physical condition without having to meet the procedural and substantive burdens of an insanity plea. Consequently, it ensures that trial courts must admit relevant evidence and instruct juries on unconsciousness whenever a defendant provides a sufficient evidentiary foundation for the claim.
