STATE V. GUIDO 40 N.J. 191, 191 A.2d 45 (1963) CASE BRIEF

STATE V. GUIDO

40 N.J. 191, 191 A.2d 45 (1963)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Guido (D) appealed from her murder conviction. D killed her husband, whom she alleged had mentally and physically abused her. At the trial, the psychiatric report presented D as sane, but after the psychiatrists met D, they retyped their report, changing their opinion as to D's legal sanity at the time of the killing.

FACTS: The victim was D's husband. D and Guido began to live together and in 1953, after the then Mrs. Guido died, they were joined by Guido's child, Lois, age 13. In 1954 they married. In 1957 D gave birth to a daughter. Guido became involved with another woman with whom he was intimate until his death. Guido abandoned D and his child and went to Florida where he lived with his lady friend. In June 1960 D sought unsuccessfully to obtain support through a complaint filed in our State. Guido returned to New Jersey a number of times for brief periods. It was upon such a visit that he was killed. Guido failed to support D or their child. D wanted a divorce, but Guido refused. Guido, returning from Florida and finding D had left the New Jersey home, went to her place of employment in New York where, according to D and her employer, Guido set upon her forcefully, attempting to choke her and brandishing a pocket knife. He was placated by the employer. Guido insisted D return to the New Jersey bungalow and she did. Guido pressed D to move to Florida and leave their infant child behind. D would not agree to his plans. According to her, Guido took a weapon from his traveling bag and threatened to use it, on their child if need be, if she thwarted him. After Guido fell asleep on a couch in the living room while watching television, D took the gun and went into her room, intending to end her life. Deciding that suicide would be no solution, she returned to the living room to put the weapon back in the suitcase, but when her eyes fell upon Guido, she raised the weapon and fired until it was empty. At trial, D claimed temporary insanity. Two court appointed psychiatrists found D to be sane at the time of the shooting. After meeting with the defense counsel, the psychiatrists changed the report and found D legally insane. The original report was ordered to be entered into evidence and the psychiatrists were subjected to a humiliating experience. The prosecutor charged that the defense was concocted and then made dynamite charges of fraud against those involved. The trial court permitted this tirade. D was convicted and appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner