Freund v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided March 18, 1987

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1987-03-18

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently January 1999

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Now, insanity. An issue in this case is whether this Defendant was legally insane when the crime allegedly was committed. All persons are presumed to be sane, however, if the evidence causes you to have a reasonable doubt concerning the Defendant’s sanity, then the presumption of sanity vanishes and the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was sane. If the Defendant was legally insane, he is not guilty. To find him legally insane there are three elements. These three elements must be shown to the point where you have a reasonable doubt about his sanity. That the Defendant had a mental infirmity, defect or disease; that this condition caused the Defendant to lose his ability to understand or reason accurately, and because of the loss of these abilities the Defendant did not know what he was doing or did not know what would result from his actions or did not know it was wrong although he knew what he was doing and its consequences. Now, in determining the issue of insanity you must consider the testimony of expert and nonexpert witnesses. The question you must answer is not whether the Defendant is legally insane today or has always been legally insane but simply if the Defendant was legally insane at the time the crime allegedly was committed. When a person tried for an offense shall be acquitted for the cause of insanity, the Court shall then determine that the Defendant presently meets the criteria set forth by law. The Court shall commit the Defenda”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 520 So. 2d 556 - Freund v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1987-03-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1AFFIRMED.

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and GUNTHER, JJ., concur.

¶2ORDER

¶3ORDERED that appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied.

¶4FURTHER ORDERED that the following question is certified to the Supreme Court of Florida as one of great public importance:

WHETHER THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT’S HOLDING IN YOHN V. STATE, 476 S0.2D 123 (FLA.1985), IS VIOLATED WHEN, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE YOHN OPINION, A TRIAL COURT INSTRUCTS THE JURY WITH THE OLD STANDARD INSTRUCTION ON INSANITY AND ADDS WITHIN THE CHARGE THE SENTENCE, “THE STATE MUST PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS SANE."