William L. Trest v. United States
William L. TREST, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
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.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 16 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.