Opinion ID: 1129112
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: was defendant insane?

Text: Defendant first contends that the trial judge abused her discretion in finding that the defendant failed to carry his burden of establishing insanity by clear and convincing evidence. Our statute provides that: A. A person is not responsible for criminal conduct by reason of insanity if at the time of such conduct the person was suffering from such a mental disease or defect as not to know the nature and quality of the act or, if such person did know, that such person did not know that what he was doing was wrong. B. The defendant shall prove he is not responsible for criminal conduct by reason of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
Paragraph (A) of this statute adopts what is known as the M'Naghten rule which has historically been followed in this state. Paragraph (B) provides that when the defendant interposes a defense of not guilty by reason of insanity, the defendant must bear the burden of proof to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he is not responsible for the criminal conduct by reason of his insanity. A.R.S. § 13-502(B). Paragraph B is a recent change from the old rule that once defendant's insanity had been put in issue, the state had the burden of proving the defendant sane. State v. Clabourne, 142 Ariz. 335, 345, 690 P.2d 54, 64 (1984). Three psychiatrists and one psychologist presented reports to the court regarding defendant's mental condition at the time of the crime. Carl Wellish, M.D., concluded that defendant was suffering from a delusional (paranoid) disorder # 297.12 DSM III-R and that he was therefore not responsible under [ M'Naghten ]. Jack Potts, M.D., found that defendant was psychotic at the time of the alleged offense and truly not able to distinguish right from wrong or to conform his conduct as required by that of the law. George A. Peabody, M.D., found that defendant was not criminally responsible under the [ M'Naghten ] rule, i.e. because of his mental illness he was grossly psychotic and as a result of which his behavior and judgment were so effected that he was unable to properly distinguish between right and wrong or to appreciate the nature and consequences of his acts. Richard Lanyon, Ph.D., the only psychologist to conduct an examination of appellant, stated, It is my opinion that Mr. Zmich was not insane by the Arizona statement of the [ M'Naghten ] rule, at that time. As indicated in my report, I believe he was suffering from a mental disorder at the time, involving paranoid thought processes. However, I believe that he knew what he was doing (assaulting his mother) and also that it was wrong to do so. If we consider the reports only, it would appear that the defendant carried his burden by clear and convincing evidence that he was M'Naghten insane at the time of the crime. The trial judge, however, after noting that she had seriously considered the opinions and the discussions raised in the letters, reports and supplements submitted by the doctors, found that at the time of the offenses on 9 March 1987, the defendant was suffering from a recognized mental disorder that was possibly aggravated by voluntary consumption of alcohol and drugs. The trial judge stated: I am also going to find at this time that the combined facts as presented to me, reviewed in light of all of the medical reports, do not reach the threshold of proving beyond a clear and convincing standard that you were legally insane on that date. The doctors disagree, they use different facts, different interviews, different processes upon which to determine their medical opinion on the state of your mental health or mental state. Compiling all of their medical opinions, psychiatric and psychological opinions with all of the facts presented to me, reviewing specifically your conduct of the day giving rise to the criminal offenses, giving rise to your deeply held anger for your mother and your stepfather over many years, considering your behavior and immediately before, during, and after these assaults and then the statements that you made thereafter, I do not find that the defense has met its burden that you were [ M'Naghten ] insane at the time of these two offenses. The fact that only one expert testified that the defendant was not M'Naghten insane at the time of the crime while three experts claimed he was M'Naghten insane is not dispositive of this issue. The trier of fact may reject one or more of the experts' opinions and give more credence to lay witness testimony and other evidence in determining whether or not a defendant comes within the purview of the statute. State v. Cano, 103 Ariz. 37, 42, 436 P.2d 586, 591 (1968). In a case in which a defendant was attempting to show his mental state at the time of the crime through the testimony of his wife and parents, we stated: The general rule is that a lay witness, if competent, may testify to relevant evidence. See Rules 402, 601, 602, 701, Ariz.Rules of Evidence, 17A A.R.S. In Arizona lay testimony has long been admissible in criminal trials on the issue of sanity. See State v. Sanchez, 117 Ariz. 369, 373, 573 P.2d 60, 64 (1977); State v. Coey, 82 Ariz. 133, 139, 309 P.2d 260, 264 (1957); M. Udall & J. Livermore, supra § 21 at 26; Wharton's Criminal Evidence § 609 at 175 (13th ed. 1973). Foundationally, a lay witness must have had an opportunity to observe the past conduct and history of a defendant, State v. Coey, 82 Ariz. at 139, 309 P.2d at 264; the fact that he is a lay witness goes not to the admissibility of the testimony but rather to its weight. Id. If lay testimony is admitted, logically, a jury is free to accept it as a basis for its verdict. State v. Overton, 114 Ariz. 553, 562 P.2d 726 (1977). This is so even if there is conflicting medical testimony on the issue. Id. State v. Bay, 150 Ariz. 112, 116, 722 P.2d 280, 284 (1986). There was also evidence in the instant case of defendant's sanity including the stepfather's testimony that defendant was malingering and that he appeared to be feigning mental illness. The rule is not what we would do if we were deciding the case, but whether or not we can say that the trial judge abused her discretion in reaching the conclusions she did. State v. Toney, 113 Ariz. 404, 555 P.2d 650 (1976). In the instant case, we do not find an abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision that the defendant had not proved by clear and convincing evidence that he was M'Naghten insane at the time of the crimes.