[Cite as State v. Petrie , 2016-Ohio-4941.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO Appellee

v. MICHAEL J. PETRIE Appellant C.A. No. 27490

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO CASE No. CR 2013 04 0968

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY Dated: July 13, 2016

CARR, Presiding Judge. {¶1} Appellant, Michael Petrie, appeals his conviction by the Summit County Court of

Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

I. {¶2} On April 3, 2013, Barberton Police officers went to the home of Maureen Soltis to perform a welfare check at the request of her br other. Officers entered the home and found Ms. Soltis’s decomposed body in a living room chair. Her son, Michael Petrie, cooperated with the police and acknowledged that he had killed his moth er about six months earlie r. Mr. Petrie later described the murder to police and explained the steps that he took to cover the body and mask the evidence of decomposition while he continued to live in the house. {¶3} Mr. Petrie was charged with aggravated murder in violation of R.C. 2903.01(A), murder in violation of R.C. 2903.02(A) and (B), felonious assault in violation of R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and (2), and abuse of a corpse in violation of R.C. 2927.01(B). Mr. Petrie2

pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and move d the trial court for a competency evaluation.

The trial court determined that Mr. Petrie was capable of unde rstanding the nature of the proceedings against him, and the case proceeded to a jury trial. Three expert witnesses testified regarding Mr. Petrie’s insanity plea, and they reached three different conclusions. The defense expert testified that Mr . Petrie suffered from a severe mental illness and, as a result, did not know the wrongfulness of his actions at the time he murd ered his mother. The State’s expert agreed that Mr. Petrie suffered from a severe mental illness, but concluded that Mr. Petrie knew the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the murder. Finally, an independent expert ordered by the court disagreed with the other experts on th e first point, concluding that Mr. Petrie did not suffer from a severe mental illness. The jury found Mr. Petrie guilty of aggravated murder, murder, and abuse of a corpse. The trial court merged the counts of aggravated murder and murder and sentenced Mr. Petrie to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The trial court also sentenced him to an eleven-month prison term with respect to his conviction for abuse of a

corpse. II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

PETRIE’S CONVICTIONS FOR AGGRAVATED MURDER AND MURDER WERE AGAINST THE MANIFEST WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. {¶4} Mr. Petrie’s single assignment of error is that his convictions for aggravated murder and murder are against the manifest weight of the evidence because he was insane at the time of the crime. We disagree. {¶5} When considering whether a conviction is against the manifest weight of the evidence, this Court must:3

review the entire record, weigh the evidence and all reasonable inferences, consider the credibility of witnesses and determine whether, in resolving conflicts in the evidence, the trier of fact clearly lost its way and created such a manifest miscarriage of justice that the convicti on must be reversed and a new trial ordered. State v. Otten , 33 Ohio App.3d 339, 340 (9th Dist.1986). A reve rsal on this basis is reserved for the exceptional case in which the evidence weighs heavily against the conviction. Id. , citing

State v. Martin , 20 Ohio App.3d 172, 175 (1st Dist.1983). A criminal defendant who pleads not guilty by reason of insanity must prove by a pr eponderance of the evidence “that at the time of the commission of the offense, the person did not know , as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, the wrongfulness of the person’s act s.” R.C. 2901.01(A)(14); R.C. 2901.05(A). When expert witnesses differ in their opinions regardin g the insanity defense, a jury must make a credibility determination when deciding which experts to believe. State v. Murphy , 4th Dist. Ross No. 15CA3475, 2016-Ohio-1165, ¶ 39. {¶6} Three experts testified with respect to Mr. Petrie’s sanity at the time of the offense. Each was experienced and well-qualified in their field. Mr. Petrie, with whom the burden of proof rested on the issue, called Dr. James Orlando, Ph.D., of Summit Psychological Associates. The State called two experts. Dr. Lynn Luna Jones, Ph.D., of the Psycho-Diagnostic Clinic serving Summit, Medina, Portage, Geauga, and Stark Counties, perf ormed a court-ordered sanity evaluation and was called as a witness by the State. Dr. Stephen G. Noffsinger, M.D., of the Cuyahoga County Psychiatric Clinic and Case Western Reserve University, was retained by the State to render an opinion. {¶7} Dr. Lynn Luna Jones acknowledged that she did not review Mr. Petrie’s extensive medical history, but testified that her eval uation was based on a 7.8-hour interview, the administration of an MMPI-2 inventory, and her review of Mr. Petrie’s statements at the time of4

his arrest. On this basis, she opined that because she did not see “a very long-term history of one or two of several different cultures of sympto ms: hallucinations, delusions, disorganized speech, disorganized behavior, things like that[,]” she di d not believe there to be enough evidence to diagnose Mr. Petrie with schizophrenia. Inst ead, her opinion was that Mr. Petrie was best diagnosed with a generalized anxiety disorder and schizotypal personality disorder. Dr. Luna Jones observed that Mr. Petrie tended to exaggerate his symptoms and “attempted to present an unrealistically negative picture of himself.” She testified that regardless of whether he had a severe mental disease at the time of the murder, Mr. Petrie appreciated the legal and moral wrongfulness of his actions, but believed that he was justified because his mother deserved it, and “his behavior should be considered accepta ble.” She concluded th at Mr. Petrie had a

rational motive for his actions in that he acted out of rage arising from a history of abuse, and she rejected the suggestion that he believed that his mother exerted a supernatural degree of control

over him. {¶8} Both Dr. Orlando and Dr. Noffsinger opined that at the time of the offense, Mr. Petrie suffered from schizophrenia, a severe mental disease that may wax and wane in intensity over the lifespan of an individual, but that is incurable. As both noted, this diagnosis was supported by Mr. Petrie’s lengthy medical history dating from his early teens up until the staff of the Summit County Jail diagnosed him as schizophrenic upon his arrest for the crimes at issue. The area of disagreement between Dr. Orlando and Dr. Noffsinger is narrow: whether Mr. Petrie’s schizophrenia caused him not to know the wrongfulness of his actions at the time he

committed the murder. Both Dr. Orlando and Dr. Noffsinger opined that this determination includes a legal and moral component. Both concluded that Mr. Petrie knew his actions were legally wrong. One concluded th at he believed his ac tions were morally justified, but the other5

disagreed. This case, therefore, presents us with a point-by-point conflict between experts on a narrow issue, and we do not need to define “wro ngfulness” with precision in order to determine

whether the standard of review for manifest weight of the evidence warrants reversal. {¶9} Both Dr. Orlando and Dr. Noffsinger testified that they reviewed Mr. Petrie’s extensive medical record, and they largely agreed on what it represented. Mr. Petrie did not have a significant history of drug or alcohol use, a lthough he did report some. His first contact with the mental health system was in 1995, when Mr . Petrie was hospitalized with depression, selfharm, and suicidal thoughts. Medical professionals initially diagnosed Mr. Petrie with major depression with psychotic features, a conduct di sorder, and indications of drug and alcohol abuse. Noting that Mr. Petrie’s diagnosis changed during his teenage years, Dr. Orlando explained that an early onset of schizophrenia is uncommon and frequently misdiagnosed at first in children because doctors witness the early progression of their symptoms. In any event, Mr. Petrie was diagnosed with para noid schizophrenia by his sixteen th birthday, and he received treatment from age 16 to age 30, when he dro pped out of treatment and stopped taking his medication. During this period, three separate me dical professionals diagnosed Mr. Petrie with schizophrenia. Dr. Orlando and Dr. Noffsinger agr eed that during treatment, Mr. Petrie suffered from delusions and hallucinations, both visual and a uditory. Both further noted that Mr. Petrie

fantasized about violen ce directed toward his mother and other family members, although Dr. Noffsinger attributed this behavior to a separate diagnosis of a personality disorder. Mr. Petrie’s medical records indicated that medication abated his symptoms to a degree, but that Mr. Petrie

did not like the side effects. {¶10} Dr. Orlando also described information that he gained from various sources about Mr. Petrie’s relationship with his mother. Dr. Orlando characte rized the relationship as “very6

pathological” and “very codependent.” He expl ained that Mr. Petrie wore diapers until second grade, and that he and his mother slept and showered together until Mr. Petrie was twelve years

old. Because Mr. Petrie’s mental illness left him unable to atte nd school, he was tutored at home after eighth grade. Dr. Orlando explained that Mr. Petrie’s social life and relationships were “nonexistent.” The other experts were aware of this background information, having been provided with Dr. Orlando’s written summary. {¶11} Although their testimony had much in common, Dr. Orlando and Dr. Noffsinger disagreed with regard to the methodology of th eir evaluation and the co nclusions that flowed from it. Dr. Orlando explained that the basis for his evaluation was “the context of the

defendant’s life and mental health history and functioning during the course of his life.” He emphasized information gained through his interv iews with Mr. Petrie, which totaled 6 1/2 hours in length, and he observed that characteristic of schizophrenia, Mr. Petrie is mistrustful. In Dr. Orlando’s opinion, one could not get much informa tion from Mr. Petrie through a short or casual meeting. Dr. Orlando testified that in a m eeting of less than two hours, it would be “very

difficult to discern some of the information we were able to uncover w ith [Mr. Petrie].” {¶12} That information led Dr. Orlando to conc lude that although Mr. Petrie did know that it was illegal to murder his mother, he di d not know the wrongfulness of his actions in a moral sense. On the first point – that Mr. Pe trie knew his actions were illegal – Dr. Orlando was clear. In his opinion, Mr. Petrie knew that if the police discovered what he had done, he would

be arrested. Dr. Orlando also opined, however, that Mr. Petr ie killed his mother under the delusion that she exerted an almost supernatur al power over him and with the conviction that doing so, while legally wrong, was morally ju stified because “killing his mother was the only way to be free from her hold over him.” He char acterized Mr. Petrie’s relationship with his7

mother as “an extreme love/hate relationship” and noted that Mr. Petrie “essentially hated her.”

With Mr. Petrie’s mental health history in view, Dr. Orlando noted that he perceived himself to be a “mystic” with the ability to see the future a nd “[a] lot of bizarre ideas about the devil and God[.]” Dr. Orlando observed that Mr. Petrie’s paranoid delusions and sense of “grandiosity” were consistently noted throughout his medical records. Dr. Orlando summarized his opinion of how Petrie perceived his mother’s murder: Mr. Petrie came to believe, and firmly came to believe, that he could not get away from his mother as long as she was alive, that she absolutely had this power or control over him. He talked about that he could not escape her power or her control no matter what. * * * He believed that he had to do this to be free. He didn’t see any other option. He didn’t see any option in moving away. He didn’t see any option of living anywhere else. And, in fact, once she was dead, quite frankly, that was the best of both worlds for him because he really didn’t want to be away from her and he was okay with living in there, eating pizzas and watching the Cavs game on a regular basis with his mother dead feet away because she was there * * * but she no longer had any power and control over him. And he was clear about that * * * he doesn’t vacillate from that at all because he really believes it. Dr. Orlando rejected the idea the Mr. Petrie acted out of rage, and he opined that Mr. Petrie did not believe he had done anything wrong. {¶13} In Dr. Orlando’s opinion, any steps that Mr. Petrie took to cover up the crime

were not evidence that he tried to avoid detec tion because he knew that what he had done was wrong, but efforts to prolong his ability to live with his mother without her interference in his life. Thus, Dr. Orlando’s ultimate conclusion was that although Mr . Petrie knew that his actions

were legally wrong, his severe mental disease cau sed him to believe that they were morally justified. {¶14} Dr. Noffsinger employed a different me thodology. In his words, “conducting a sanity evaluation is a forensic me ntal health evaluation. It require s specific training. It’s very different than doing a mental h ealth evaluation for the purpose of treatment. It’s a different kind8

of methodology and different kind of thinking involved.” Dr. Noffsinge r explained that his primary focus in conducting a sanity evaluation is a thorough review of case history and records. He explained: I could have spent hours, such as six hours, ten hours, or as much time as I needed doing a personal interview, but what the defendant tells you there kind of carries less weight for several reasons. One is it’s usually given weeks to months to years after the offense. In this case the offense took place on 10/16/12 and I was interviewing Mr. Petrie 17 months later. So his account that he gave me on Marc h 19th, to me, would have carried less weight because, first of all, his memory would have - - would have faded or been contaminated just with the passage of time. Secondly, with some defendants given that period of time [they] may construct an account that might be self-serving a nd support their defense of insanity. Dr. Noffsinger added that for these reasons, his focus is on any records that could reflect a

defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense. In addition, Dr. Noffsinger noted that there are some recognized situations in which a de fendant operates under a ps ychotic delusion “that they are morally justified and some greater go od will come about by breaking the law,” but rejected that principle in this case. Instead, he concluded that the evidence demonstrated that Mr. Petrie clearly knew that his actions were illegal. {¶15} Employing this methodology, Dr. Noffsinge r concluded that although Mr. Petrie has a severe mental disease, his diagnosis of schizophrenia did not impair his knowledge of the wrongfulness of his actions on the day that he committed the murder. According to Dr. Noffsinger, Mr. Petrie’s statements and actions indicate “ample evidence” that he acted with a rational motive: anger. Specifically, Dr. Noffsinger noted that Mr. Petrie told police shortly after his arrest that he was “fed up” with how his mother treated him and that he explained, “We

didn’t like each other. She was hard on me all of my life. I had the urge, I killed her and that was it.” Mr. Petrie explained his actions to Dr. Noffsinger in the same way, saying that he9

believed killing his mother was the only way to end a lifetime of mental abuse. He also told Dr. Noffsinger that “as he killed his mother, he said, ‘I f**cking hate you, that’s it.’ [a]nd * * * ‘Die, you bitch.’” Dr. Noffsinger testified that the nature and extent of Ms. Soltis’s injuries corroborate the anger that Mr. Petr ie identified as his motive. {¶16} Dr. Noffsinger also reasoned that Mr. Pe trie did not exhibit a psychotic motive

that caused him to believe that his actions were not wrongful. Specifically, Dr. Noffsinger noted that Mr. Petrie did not perceive himself to be ac ting in self-defense, nor did he indicate that he suffered any hallucinations at the time of the offense. Instead, he observed that Mr. Petrie’s behavior during and after the offense was “clear evidence that he knew he had done something wrong.” In this vein, Mr. Petrie told Dr. Noffsinger that he did not call the police “because he knew he would go to jail and serve a prison sent ence. * * * [H]e knew he would be caught eventually for the offense.” When asked how he could reconcile a diagnosis of severe mental illness with rational motives, Dr. Noffsinger explained: [P]eople who have a mental illness are still able to act on rational motives just like all of us. [They] can do things because of anger, because they want money, because they want revenge, because they want sexual gratification, or whatever. Just because one is mentally ill does not mean that every action that that person undertakes is driven by their mental illne ss, it’s driven by other factors as well. Dr. Noffsinger also rejected Dr. Orlando’s opinion that Mr. Petrie believe d he had no means of escape from his mother’s control but to kill her: First of all, that’s not what he told me a nd not what he told the police. So I would put less weight on that being accurate, gi ven that it was only given to Dr. Orlando and was not corroborated by what he said closer in time to the killing[.] He summarized his conclusion on this issue succinc tly: “[T]here was no greater good to be had by him killing his mother. He wasn’t going to save the world.”10

{¶17} Dr. Luna Jones disagreed with Mr. Petr ie’s diagnosis, but agreed with Dr. Noffsinger to the extent that he concluded that Mr. Petrie knew the wrongf ulness of his actions. Although Dr. Orlando and Dr. Noffsinger agreed with respect to Mr. Petrie’s diagnosis that he suffered from a severe mental disease at the time of Ms. Soltis’s murder, they diverged on the

issue of whether the severe ment al disease caused Mr. Petrie not to know the wrongfulness of the act. All three experts are highly qualified, expe rienced, and well-respected in their field; all authored persuasive expert reports and offered articulate and credible testimony in this case. We cannot say that the evidence weighs heavily in favor of Dr. Orlando’s opinion, as Mr. Petrie advocates, nor can we conclude that the jury lo st its way by accepting one expert opinion instead of the others. In other words, the evidence in this case is balanced, and in these circumstances, we cannot say that this is the exceptional case in which we must reverse th e conviction as against the manifest weight of the evidence. {¶18} Mr. Petrie’s assignment of error is overruled.

III. {¶19} Mr. Petrie’s assignment of error is overruled. The judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal. We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the manda te, pursuant to App.R. 27.11

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this docum ent shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22 (C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the docket, pursuant to App.R. 30. Costs taxed to Appellant.

DONNA J. CARR FOR THE COURT

HENSAL, J. SCHAFER, J. CONCUR

APPEARANCES: NICHOLAS SWYRYDENKO, Attorney at Law, for Appellant. SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN DIMARTINO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.