i don't think anyone can deny that this is a case of the story of the tragedy that really didn't have to happen the bare facts of the case are essential to an understanding of what the underlying arguments are here what effect ask let's live with schizophrenia all of his adult life i faithfully taking his medication what if i control this disease and live his life maintaining a very loving long term relationship with margery i think it was not always then for reasons totally out of mortifies control what if i was deprived of his medication the spite all of his efforts and the efforts of his social worker the efforts of the pharmacist his medication was withheld from him predictably he was overtaken by this disease and it spiraled out of control and gail the love of his life ended up mortifies hands and you know in writing i tried to avoid using the word slayer statute and used the formal name but it's called the slayer statute and order i did in fact and up killing the one person he l judgment that was made except for collateral estoppel these facts raise three issues that i am asking this court to consider the st issue is that it is one is it even possible that the legislature in amending the probate act intended that mentally ill individual should be treated identically to the most malevolent criminals st and nd degree murder those citations to the record when they are in the sighted and the rd in determining the depth of the definition for the op intent for the statute what principles or definition case showing a distinction in and the twenty in the outcome of the criminal case and a different level from the probate case the actually the actual statute itself indicates that there is a difference because when the statute is not the say otherwise we wouldn't need that europe article presumption otherwise the statute or the statute passed the say is anytime there's a finding of intent anywhere they're automatically precludes ta intentionally and unjustifiably for purposes of this section in order to have the respondent not guilty by reason of insanity the criminal court had to find that the state prove beyond a reasonable doubt of the elements are correct and there is a specific reason for that if one looks further into the statute the statute explains that for most people when they hear that you've raised the defense of insanity they  treatment so for the purposes of the serving of the path of insanity you have to the court had set aside some language that distinguish it from the concept of affirmative defense excuse me i didn't need to come down the legislators were very very aware of the issue of insanity they could very easily have said as they were amending the statute while they were discussing it they sometimes we don't know what the legislature was addressing but here we know they did what we hear we know specifically i believe that the pace of the statute is what tells us that intent for the statute collateral stop was another way of saying we're going to do in here by the presumption in fact particularly in this case because what the we know that the court itself based on the facts said that there were questions material if use of  then you have to look at the intent of the legislature the th of the statute because when we did it when we apply statutes we look at the intent of the legislature when we apply contracts we look at intent of the parties  said that it was upheld based on back case the facts of that case and the facts of that case i will say this i researched the issue there's no way of citing oral arguments and what decision saying dougherty is much different and these are the cute i'm going to jump back and forth because they're kind of similar issues in the supreme court relied on the fact that the criminal judge specifically said the words intent he intended that was one of the things in doherty the quite looked at the statements the testimony of the slayer we don't know where the testimony was going there were references we don't know how the court determined cognisance we don't know the specific facts we do know doherty didn't take that information we don't know dorothy didn't voluntarily take stop taking his medication that was a question that the oral arguments we don't know  here in this particular fact we know for certain morning fight didn't voluntarily do anything to cause his state of being we know that he did everything he could to avoid  importantly though i should say more importantly but equally important is if you look at the case itself and if you look at the citations that are referenced by the appellee allegedly saying that in these cases look intent was considered by the criminal court and therefore citations for that there is one citation in the brief that says both expert witnesses also testif lorianne is opinion that defendant was suffering from a mental disease or defect that resulted in the substantial lack of capacity to appreciate the criminality there is a citation supposedly another citation regarding intent trial court said i did find him not guilty by reason of insanity and that and g r i i am finding in the same in all three counts now a citation to the record is supposed to be what's there not not what you think the court backed and i pointed out in my reply brief the th time that was all in their very where they say that the court that the trial court said evidence of intent was presented and it was and it doesn't say that there must be a reason to constantly try to say that the criminal court found intent specifically because that close to the issue of when you apply collateral stoppel there has to be some fairness and justice and if we're going to be honest on our face we know someone and saying is that a come to court like more if i did and he's going to be advised legal insanity you are insane nobody sits there and go through their record nobody says and says by the way you know you can argue that you really didn't intended and then you'll be able to inherit so don't do that when you're insane you come to the court and say i would say there was no real determination of intent what you've got and i know i know this court sees cases all the time how often do you get the criminal court judge saying i hope you're going to sue the blank out of someone because of this tragedy because more if i should have had medication and tried his best to get it the question then becomes how do you determine intent because i if in fact we get to the point that you could read the legislative history to simply say intense not wanting to pollute n c r of means insane people should not be covered by the slightest  limited itself to the facts of that case and it said adeline is in the facts of this case one of the guidance that we have in determining what we look for when we want to determine int but we have more than that by looking at the statue we know that the law has evolved over the years and it's understanding of mental illness and issues of chemical control of the brain it's evolved much in the way that the court has evolved in terms of issues of equality and justice i mean you can go from plessy versus ferguson to board of ed you can look at l g b t rights even the rights of mentally ill to less restrictive environments this understand what controls an individual's actions and wills and understands that chemistry has a very large part to play the very words about statute are the findings of all the experts that he was  muscular dystrophy or any other ailment hunnish in mordecai for what happened would be the same as calling a cancer victim a suicide if the cancer victim had no access to treatment and was too poor to afford all therapy as this court is aware and i know because you wish the organ when i did die about three weeks ago and he died never having found the freedom that maybe that legacy could have afforded him but i'm here because the principles involved are an issue and they all timidly reflect legislatures and our society's understanding of the causes of mental illness and they reflect the us treatment of those who are caught in this totally cliffs and unbreakable web we as a side society have above in our understanding of mental illness the legislature understood this this it is specifically dragon and acting and drafting legislation that at the very least should afford to magically build the same rights as any citizen we should be declining to love and she are in with st degree murder worth if we set aside the collateral question of whether those statements artifact invisible after hearing before the probate court may when they were in a stipulated report and case law which i cited in my brief states that stipulated reports are good for the purpose of saying that is the diagnosis of the doctor those are the qualifications of the doctor but it doesn't necessarily lend itself to the statements that with then the nd thing order i could have said intent but that doesn't answer the question of what we mean by intend pursuant to the statute mordecai also said he didn't get his vexation he also said he couldn't get his medication insanity after a trial at which mr fast which had all been fair opportunity to present his case and in fact the record shows he did present his case to defend himself  more than just a st degree murder conviction more than just the language in the st degree murder statute it would include any actions that could result  were it would be reasonable for a court to determine that it would result in the death of the person and here we know that the criminal or had to use the standard beyond a reasonable doubt right when you're getting that's one of you know the only difference here we have that fine by the criminal court but it's now in the context of having and here i find we have a generic finding of murder in the trial court and we have options in the criminal statute and there's no statement i mean how do we how are we able to conclude that the issues decided here and i cause the death of gail it's that that finding was made and if it's made in the criminal context it's where you have the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt that it will necessarily be the type of finding that is identical to a determination under the slayer statute of intent where the standard the standard proof isn't even a strong supreme court clarified the issues around the standard of review and indicated that it's a split standard the standard is a no vote when it comes to defendant in the criminal case so we do have an identity of if we don't require an identity of a full identity parlance in the sense that we have that there is no again on the platter will stop will that there is no need for a nd trial when we've already had the finding by the criminal court of intent whether it was  analysis of the motion for summary judge this court may have a whole summary judgment on any grounds supported by the record and if you apply the doherty standard for intent to cause death under this letter statute in this case and we don't have to worry so much about what the criminal court found instead we can work to the findings to to the record in the criminal court case and actually look at doherty and with all due respect to the dorothy court they got the legislative history wrong if you look at doherty what they cite is representative and nine and they say representative and don i said the bill remains new on criminal liability for insanity they did not at all consider the testimony when when representative and diane was trying to explain the bell at the end she said am i saying this right right all right i'm getting off this bill and let mr gaddy plead my case for me would you do that might probably court judge gaddy i turn it over to representative gabby and that's the history the legislative history that actually applied they asked judge geddy to explain he was a legislator at the time to explain the purpose of the bill and that's when he specifically said this doesn't address anything about insanity because we could not do that because of the difficulty of intent and we intent in order to make a person on able to inherit so by not considering the actual expert legislator so to say who was deferred to and asked to explain this bill this area scout and there is a possibility the case might go back but i guess in light of the fact that he already is deceased it's going to make a lot of work if it does