Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Kathleen and Daniel Lee Wisdom separated in September 2001 after seven months of marriage, and Kathleen moved in with her former boyfriend, Daniel Filkins. On Oct. 31, Wisdom went to where the couple lived, and after waiving a pistol at wife, he eventually confronted Filkins and shot him in the chest and abdomen. Police officers arrived to find Wisdom sitting on his truck; he admitted to trying to kill Filkins. On March 14, 2002, just four days before trial, defense counsel informed the visiting judge at the pretrial conference that she had just received a psychiatrist’s report from Dr. Charles F. Yackulic, which asserted that Wisdom had been treated in the past for depression and suicidal urges. The report also stated that Wisdom suffered from visual and auditory hallucinations and had been on medication since February 2002. Wisdom’s attorney filed a motion for continuance to investigate a possible insanity defense and a motion for a competency examination. The visiting judge orally granted the latter motion and appointed a psychiatrist, Dr. Baker, to examine Wisdom, but said she’d leave the former motion for the regular judge to decide on the date of trial. At trial, on March 18, Wisdom’s attorney filed a notice of intent to raise the insanity defense, as well as a motion for examination for insanity at the time of the defense and a motion for continuance. In the motion for continuance, the attorney noted that Yackulic was out of town and would not return until March 25. The trial court conducted a competency hearing where Baker was the only witness. The jury determined that Wisdom was competent to stand trial. Though the trial court appointed a mental health and mental retardation psychiatrist, Dr. Reddy, a hearing on Wisdom’s insanity at the time of the offense was never held. Reddy did submit a letter to that effect, however, at some point. The jury heard the trial on the merits and convicted Wisdom of assault with a deadly weapon. Wisdom’s attorney filed a motion for new trial, which included an affidavit from Yackulic, which included a description of Wisdom’s mental illness, as well as the doctor’s opinion Wisdom was under the influence of an illogical, manic phase at the time of the shooting incident. The trial court did not hold a hearing the motion. Wisdom appeals. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. The court rejects the state’s argument that Wisdom waived his complaint alleging and abuse of discretion for refusing to grant his motion for continuance, by failing to object to the trial at the March 18 hearing. The record shows that counsel agreed to the competency hearing but continued to press her request for a delay in the trial so she could have Wisdom’s mental state more fully examined. Furthermore, the trial court impliedly considered and denied the motion for continuance by proceeding as it did. Nor does the court find that Wisdom waived his right to raise the insanity defense by not raising in at least 10 days before trial. There is nothing to indicate that Wisdom’s attorney received any information that would have raised the issue any sooner than she did. There is good case, then, for the motion’s untimeliness. Furthermore, the trial court did not deny the insanity defense on timeliness grounds, as evidenced by the fact of Reddy’s appointment to examine Wisdom. The court reviews Wisdom’s testimony at trial: he said he knew right from wrong, but he also referred to the voice of God in his head, telling him to get rid of Filkins. Wisdom’s attorney also informed the court of Yackulic’s conclusions. All in all, Wisdom’s attorney had a duty to render effective assistance of counsel by conducting a complete investigation into all potential defenses, but by denying her requested continuance, the trial court “effectively thwarted defense counsel’s attempt to discharge her duty.” OPINION:Vance, J.; Gray, Vance and Reyna, JJ. DISSENT: Gray, C.J. “I am unwilling to hold that a trial court impliedly denies a motion for continuance simply by proceeding to trial.” The dissent would find that Wisdom did not secure a ruling, so the issue was not properly preserved for appellate review.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.