Opinion ID: 1785006
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: guilty versus guilt by reason of insanity

Text: In our opinion in Laney we said that the M'Naghten test of insanity remains the law in this State with regard to the insanity defense. We reiterate that test as follows: To establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing of the act the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as (1) not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or (2) if he did know it that he did not know that he was doing what was wrong. 421 So.2d at 1218. Also see Merrill v. State, 482 So.2d 1147 (Miss. 1986); Frost v. State, 453 So.2d 695 (Miss. 1984); Billiot v. State, 454 So.2d 445 (Miss. 1984), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 105 S.Ct. 1232, 84 L.Ed.2d 369 (1985); Edwards v. State, 441 So.2d 84 (Miss. 1983); Groseclose v. State, 440 So.2d 297 (Miss. 1983). Although the expert witnesses expressed their views that Laney was M'Naghten insane at the time he committed the crime, their testimony before the jury did not bear that out. The jury, upon hearing the expert's testimony and upon being properly instructed as to M'Naghten had ample evidence upon which to determine that Laney was not M'Naghten insane when he shot Deputy Smith. Furthermore, expert opinions of psychiatrists are not conclusive upon the issue of insanity but rather insanity is a question to be resolved by the jury. Lias v. State, 362 So.2d 198 (Miss. 1978). Also see Billiot v. State, 454 So.2d 445 (Miss. 1984). It is uncontradicted in the record that Laney suffers from the mental disorder, schizophrenia, paranoia type. However, this does not in itself make him M'Naghten insane. At the first trial Dr. Guild was of the opinion that Laney was competent to stand trial as well as being responsible for his actions in accordance with objective criterion. Guild believed that Laney was sane at that time in the sense that Laney might have thought others would perceive his actions as illegal. In other words, according to Guild, he might have known or he would have known that others would think that the killing was unlawful, but that he thought it was right. After spending approximately one and one-half hours with Laney since the first trial Dr. Guild explained his initial impression was wrong and was now of the opinion that Laney was so disorganized and delusional at the time that he did not comprehend right from wrong. Guild said ... I don't think that you can morally hold Waddell Laney responsible for the death of the deputy. I just cannot do that. Guild said . . my opinion is still that he knew the nature and quality of his acts. That is, Laney was aware that he had a .22 rifle which could kill or severely injure. However, Guild did not believe Laney knew that his actions were wrong because of his mental illness. With regard to Laney, Guild said, I certainly believe that if you feel that God has commanded you to do something, you would have to have the ultimate right on your side. Dr. Lancaster was asked to explain why she felt Laney was not responsible for his actions. She said He felt that he was acting on direct orders from God. He knew that killing a man was wrong legally, but he felt if God commanded him to do this, that it was right. When asked Did the Defendant know the nature and quality of his act on January 12, 1981? She responded He knew that killing a person was wrong in the eyes of the law, or the state's law. Again on cross-examination she said He knew he was shooting the sheriff and the deputy and he was to kill them, yes. She acknowledged that he knew killing a law enforcement officer was against the law of the State of Mississippi and that society did not approve of killing. Dr. Robertson was of the opinion that Laney knew the nature and quality of his act on January 12, 1981. She testified ... I think also he knew at the time of the shooting it was wrong to kill a person. When asked if Laney knew it was against the laws of the State of Mississippi to kill a human being she said, Yes, I think he did. According to Dr. Stanley, Laney was M'Naghten insane at the time the crime was committed, although in 1981 his opinion was that Laney was sane at the time he committed the crime. Stanley was asked whether or not Laney knew the nature and quality of his act. He said Yes, at the time of the shooting of the sheriff and the deputy, he did know the nature and quality. He knew he was shooting the uniformed officers. He knew that shooting at a man would make him very, very dead. Although Stanley testified Laney could not appreciate the wrongfulness of his act, when asked So, then, he did know that he was violating the laws of the state of Mississippi., he responded Yeah, I think that he knew that the law would take a dim view if you'd asked him, that the law would take a dim view of him shooting a law enforcement officer. Various relatives of Laney and community members testified with regard to his sanity. The general opinion was that Laney had never been normal, had always been different. It was based upon the above testimony that the jury found Laney guilty of capital murder. The evidence is uncontradicted that Laney knew the quality and nature of his acts. The testimony was also abundantly clear that Laney knew what he was doing was considered wrong by society and was wrong according to the laws of this State. The question concerning Laney's insanity was a question for the jury's resolution. From what they heard and observed at trial they determined that Laney knew the nature and quality of the act of shooting Deputy Smith and was cognizant of the fact that this act was wrong. We have carefully scrutinized this record and cannot state that the jury's determination in this case was unsupported by the evidence.