legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Gregory
On September 5, 1993, respondent Edwin Gregory (Edwin) shot and killed Jack Burrow. He subsequently pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) to a charge of murder (Pen. Code,[2] 187) and denied personally using a firearm in commission of the offense ( 12022.5, subd. (a)). Edwin later was found incompetent to stand trial and was committed to Atascadero State Hospital. On May 16, 1994, following restoration of his competency, he pled no contest to second degree murder with the use of a firearm, and submitted the issue of his sanity to a jury. Three psychiatrists Drs. Terrell, Velosa, and Mills testified as expert witnesses for the defense. All opined that Edwin suffered from schizophrenia manifested most significantly by a paranoid delusion that persons acting through Burrow (notably Frank Lisney, a business contact in Russia) were intent on killing Edwin and his family. All three concluded Edwin was suffering from the disorder when he shot Burrow, such that he was incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his actions and thus was legally insane. Psychologist and law professor Steven Morse appeared for the prosecution. Morse questioned whether Edwins behavior prior to the shooting could be considered evidence of incipient schizophrenia; instead, he suggested its interpretation as such was the product of retrospective bias. In Morses opinion, Edwin was not manifestly psychotic until after he was jailed. Morse declined to express an opinion about whether, at the time of the shooting, Edwin was legally sane in the sense that he understood the difference between right and wrong; however, he did testify that Edwin was not so detached from reality at the time as to be considered legally insane.
The California Supreme Court dismissed review in Gregory II on July 27, 2005, S110450. With the case again properly before it, the trial court conducted further proceedings on Edwins petition, granted the writ, and deemed the plea of no contest withdrawn. Once again the People appeal. For the reasons that follow, Court reverse and remand the matter to the trial court with directions to reinstate Edwins no contest plea and the judgment and sentence.


Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2024 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2024 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale