Opinion ID: 1279824
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Motions in Limine re Psychiatric Testimony.

Text: Reynolds did not plead that he was not responsible by reason of insanity at the time of the offense, that is, not responsible by reason of insanity. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2203 (Reissue 1989) (defense of not responsible by reason of insanity). In motions in limine, the State requested that Reynolds be barred from eliciting opinion testimony at trial from psychiatrists or psychologists as to whether or not Terry Reynolds on March 14, 1987, did in fact purposely and with deliberate and premeditated malice kill Craig Dodge (emphasis in original) and from eliciting opinion testimony at trial from psychiatrists or psychologists as to whether or not the shooting of Craig Dodge by Terry Reynolds on March 14, 1987, was in fact an impulsive or spontaneous act (emphasis in original). Among bases for its motions in limine, the State asserted that the prospective psychiatric testimony on deliberateness and premeditation in Reynolds' shooting Dodge was not an opinion or inference [which would] aid the jury and was nothing more than a factual determination which can be made by any juror who hears the evidence. When the court sustained the State's in limine motions, the court remarked: Well, I am not sure [the psychiatric] testimony would be that helpful to the jury. I think this is basically a jury question. It depends on how they are going to consider the evidence and what decision they will make as to whether [Reynolds] washow scared he was when he was drunk ... how much he had to drink, how much he worried about the assault on Tina and on and on and on.... I think this is for the jury to decide.... This doesn't mean that [the psychiatrists] won't, can't testify about certain areas, [Reynolds'] personality and so forth but it's the ultimate question here, I believe it's a jury question.