Title: Burns v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Michael BURNS v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 95-546                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 29, 1996


1.   Criminal law -- acquittal based on psychiatric report -- trial
     court's authority and discretion. -- Under Ark. Code Ann.  5-
     2-313 (1987), a trial court may, if it is satisfied that the
     defendant is suffering from mental disease or defect, enter a
     judgment of acquittal; section 5-2-313 permits the trial judge
     to acquit the defendant in cases of extreme mental disease or
     defect where the lack of responsibility on the part of the
     defendant is clear.

2.   Criminal law -- denial of motion to acquit based on
     psychiatric report was within trial court's authority and
     discretion. -- Where the state hospital's psychiatric report
     reflected that appellant lacked the capacity to conform his
     behavior to the law at the time he fatally shot one co-worker
     and wounded eight, but the state hospital's expert witnesses
     offered opinions concerning appellant's mental status that
     were far from clear, and the trial court concluded that
     appellant's case was neither one of extreme mental disease or
     defect nor one where the lack of responsibility on appellant's
     part was clear, the supreme court held that the trial court's
     ruling denying appellant's motion to acquit was clearly within
     its authority and discretion.

3.   Jury -- expert testimony -- jury not bound to accept expert
     testimony as conclusive -- jury to decide whether defendant
     has sustained burden of proving insanity -- jury is sole judge
     of credibility of witnesses. -- Although medical evidence on
     the issue of insanity is highly persuasive, a jury is not
     bound to accept opinion testimony of experts as conclusive,
     and it is not compelled to believe their testimony any more
     than the testimony of other witnesses; further, it is for the
     jury to decide whether a defendant has sustained the burden of
     proving insanity by a preponderance of the evidence; the jury
     is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses,
     including experts, and has the duty to resolve conflicting
     testimony regarding mental competence.

4.   Jury -- sufficient evidence existed for jury to find appellant
     was sane when he committed crimes. --    On the basis of the
     testimony of various co-workers who reported nothing unusual
     about appellant's behavior on the day of the shootings, the
     supreme court concluded that sufficient evidence existed for
     the jury to find that appellant was sane and legally
     responsible when he committed the crimes.

5.   Criminal law -- defendant not found guilty by reason of mental
     disease or defect -- jury not to be told of options available
     to trial court. -- The jury is not to be told of the options
     available to the trial court when a defendant is found not
     guilty by reason of mental disease or defect because such an
     instruction raises questions foreign to the jury's primary
     duty of determining guilt or innocence; to grant such a
     request would permit or encourage the jury to base its verdict
     on speculation regarding the defendant's subsequent
     disposition rather than on the law and evidence concerning his
     mental responsibility at the time of the crimes.


     Appeal from Union Circuit Court; John M. Graves, Judge;
affirmed.
     Janet L. Thornton, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Gil Dudley, Asst. Att'y Gen.,
for appellee.

     Tom Glaze, Justice.

*ADVREP1*






MICHAEL BURNS,
                    APPELLANT,

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,
                    APPELLEE.



CR95-546

Opinion Delivered:  1-29-96

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF UNION COUNTY, ARKANSAS, NO.
CR93-110; HONORABLE JOHN M.
GRAVES, CIRCUIT JUDGE 


AFFIRMED





                  TOM GLAZE, Associate Justice

     On February 3, 1993, appellant Michael Burns entered his
workplace possessing firearms, and commenced firing them.  As a
result, he killed one and wounded eight co-workers.  After the
state charged Burns with capital murder, seven counts of attempted
murder and three counts of aggravated assault, Burns raised the
defense of mental disease or defect, and requested a psychiatric
examination.  Upon receipt of the Arkansas State Hospital's report,
reflecting Burns lacked the capacity to conform his behavior to the
law at the time of the shootings, he filed a pretrial motion for
acquittal.  After a hearing, the trial court denied Burns's motion. 
At trial, the only issue in dispute was whether Burns was legally
responsible at the time of the shooting spree.  The jury found
Burns guilty of all charges, and sentenced him to life imprisonment
without parole.
     Burns's arguments basically are two.  First, Burns contends
that, because the state hospital found him insane at the time he
committed the crimes, the trial court should have granted his
motion for acquittal prior to trial.  He urges that, since the
state failed to put forth any medical evidence to rebut the state
hospital's findings, the trial court erred in allowing his case to
go to trial on the merits.  We disagree.  
     In Davasher v. State, 308 Ark. 154,