United States v. Harold Williams

Harold Williams was tried before a jury and found guilty of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) (1964). On this appeal from the judgment of conviction, he first contends that the trial court erred in not giving his proposed jury instruction on the defense of insanity, or an instruction on that subject based on section 4.01 of the American Law Institute Model Penal Code.

The instruction given by the court on this subject differed from that proposed by defendant only in the inclusion of an additional basis for a determination that defendant was insane. Thus the instruction given was more favorable to defendant than the instruction he requested.

Moreover, after the court made known to the parties the form of instruction on the insanity defense which would be given, counsel indicated that it was “acceptable” to defendant. In the charge to the jury the trial court departed from this form of instruction in two minor respects, both favorable to defendant. Defendant took no exception to the instruction as given.

Under Rule 30, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a party may not, except as provided in Rule 52(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, assign as error an…