Froom

People v. Froom

Bad Law
108 Cal. App. 3d 820·166 Cal. Rptr. 786·1980 Cal. App. LEXIS 2115
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 31, 1980Crim. 10369California4,979 words

Opinion

Opinion

DeCRISTOFORO, J.

Defendant Robert J. Froom appeals from an order committing him for a minimum period of 90 days to the state hospital or other mental institution, after a jury first found him guilty of violation of Penal Code section 246 (discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling), and then not guilty by reason of insanity (Pen. Code, § 1026). Defendant contends that the instructions during the guilt phase of his trial, on diminished capacity, unconsciousness and insanity were erroneous and confusing to the jury; that the trial court utilized an incorrect standard in determining whether he had regained his sanity; that former Penal Code section 1026 did not require the trial court to order a minimum commitment period of 90 days; and that if that section did so require then it violates due process of law. We reject each of these contentions and affirm the order of commitment.

I

The evidence concerning the offense was relatively simple. During July 1978, Tracy Borhani and her cousin Ronald Hyde were staying with their grandfather, Gerald Hyde, in his mobilehome in the City of Davis. Ronald Hyde became acquainted with defendant and did some work for a friend of defendant. On July 22,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.