Opinion ID: 659070
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence Regarding Carter's Sanity

Text: 27 In his final challenge, Carter asserts that the weight of the psychological evidence offered at trial proved that Carter was insane at the time of the crime. Specifically, Carter challenges as equivocal the testimony of one of the state's witnesses regarding insanity. In addition, Carter argues that the trial court erred in allowing the testimony of a nurse, whose testimony included mention of Carter's statement that his lawyer told him to play crazy. 28 Under Tennessee law, when there is evidence pro and con on the issue of the sanity of the person charged with a crime, the state bears the burden of proving that the defendant had the mental ability to distinguish between right and wrong, and knew the nature and quality of his act at the time of the act. Edwards v. State, 540 S.W.2d 641, 646 (Tenn.1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1061 (1977). The state may meet its burden with expert testimony, lay testimony, or by proof of acts or statements by the defendant that are consistent with sanity or inconsistent with insanity. Id. The issue of sanity is a question for the jury. Graham v. State, 547 S.W.2d 531, 543 (Tenn.1977). 29 In this habeas appeal, we consider whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found Carter sane. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). We find that significant evidence existed to establish Carter's sanity. The Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals considered this argument and held that the state introduced expert psychiatric testimony to the effect that Carter was competent both at the time of the homicides and on the date of the trial. This evidence was buttressed by lay testimony from others regarding Carter's actions during the time of the murders. 30 Moreover, a nurse who served as the coordinator of Carter's evaluation team during his court-ordered 30-day evaluation at the Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute testified that Carter told her of his lawyer's recommendation to play crazy. Carter admits that the nurse's testimony is inconsistent with his claim of insanity, but Carter argues that her testimony was inadmissible because she was not an expert and because her testimony was introduced for the sole purpose of prejudicing the jury against the defendant. Clearly, the nurse's testimony was admissible, for both experts and lay witnesses can testify as to insanity in Tennessee. See Edwards, 540 S.W.2d at 646 (admissible evidence includes both medical and lay testimony). Thus, we need not reach Carter's claim that the nurse was improperly treated as an expert, though evidence established that she could have been qualified as such. Carter's prejudice argument is similarly unavailing, for the nurse's testimony was directly relevant to the question of Carter's sanity. Any prejudice to Carter's insanity defense was the result of the highly damaging statement he himself made to the nurse. In sum, we hold that sufficient evidence existed for a rational juror to conclude that Carter was sane at all relevant times. 31 AFFIRMED.