Following Cole, Alaska Supreme Court viewed problem of requisite instruction as a "judicial choice.”
How later courts described this case
- Following Cole, Alaska Supreme Court viewed problem of requisite instruction as a "judicial choice.”
- "the purpose of the voir dire examination is to enable the attor neys to elicit such information as to develop a rational basis for the exercise of challenges for cause or peremptory challenges”
- "the purpose of the voir dire examination is to enable the attor *587 neys to elicit such information as to develop a rational basis for the exercise of challenges for cause or peremptory challenges”
- "This appeal makes it mandatory that this Court choose between ...”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Adams, J.
(concurring). I concur with Justice T. M. Kavanagh in the holding that the admission of the testimony of' the lay witnesses as to the question of the insanity of the defendant was error. Instead of restating the rule in such cases, I would reaffirm and apply the rule as stated in People v. Zabijak (1938), 285 Mich 164 , 185:
“A nonexpert witness who has had ample means to observe and form conclusions as to the mental condition of a person and who testifies to pertinent facts on which his conclusions are based may state his conclusions as to the insanity of a person.”
• I agree with that portion of his opinion which deals with the second issue on appeal and which holds that “in all criminal trials or retrials taking place after the date of the filing of this opinion, where the defense of insanity is present and that issue is made submissible by the proofs, the defendant, upon his own timely request, or upon request of the jury, shall be entitled to an instruction in accord with the rule of Lyles.”