Opinion ID: 1454668
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Sanity When Crime Occurred.

Text: William relied on the defense of insanity at trial. In Kansas, the test for insanity is the M'Naghten test, under which the accused is held to be not criminally responsible for his acts (1) where he does not know the nature and quality of his act, or in the alternative, (2) where he does not know right from wrong with respect to the act. State v. Boan, 235 Kan. 800, 809, 686 P.2d 160 (1984). The standard of appellate review for sufficiency of the evidence is well established: When the sufficiency of evidence is challenged, the standard of review on appeal is whether, after review of all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the appellate court is convinced that a rational factfinder could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Graham, 247 Kan. 388, Syl. ¶ 5, 799 P.2d 1003 (1990). The State presented evidence from a number of non-law enforcement people who observed and talked to William both before and after Richard was killed, and their testimony, standing alone, would form a basis for a jury to determine that the defendant did not meet the M'Naghten test for insanity. In addition, William cut off and buried the identifiable body parts (an act Dr. Modlin thought was significant because it suggests William knew what he was doing at the time he killed Richard). William also left a notebook at the scene that attempts to set up an alibi. In the notebook, William first described a rape, death, and mutilation of a young woman (similar somewhat to Richard's death and mutilation) by three men who put the body and body parts in the river. This supposedly took place between William's campsite and North Lawrence. In the notebook, William then described what he did on the day Richard was killed and the following day. Highly summarized, he described getting and taking Richard fishing and walking Richard part-way home. He then expresses a wish to take Richard and his brother, Butch, fishing the following day. The entry the following day (the day following Richard's death) contains a message to Richard and Butch that, if they come by to go fishing, to stay at the campsite until he returns. He tells them there is drinking water, but to save him some. The notebook then purports to show William returned and then left for lunch, and contains a note to that effect and that Richard and Butch could hang around the campsite if they want to. The notebook also contains other writings of the defendant that clearly show a person having mental problems. Because William later admitted to killing Richard, a jury could easily find that the notebook was a conscious attempt to establish an alibi and show lack of knowledge concerning Richard's death. It was not until later that William became convinced that a cult had killed Richard. By attempting to establish an alibi, William showed he was not insane at the time of the crime. Further evidence of this is that Dr. Modlin was of the opinion that William had not formed that delusion until after he killed Richard. Dr. Modlin testified he had examined the police interrogations on July 14, 15, and 16 and concluded: THE WITNESS: His language was adequate. His responses were relevant and coherent. He understood the questions, and his answers, you know, went along with the questions. He gave two or three versions of what happened or what might have happened, and one of them was that he committed the crime, and he was visibly upset and cried more than once, which I would consider a very understandable, normal reaction to someone in this situation, recalling what had happened. Another time or two, he was quite composed. One striking episode was that he was able to describe dismembering the body. He had difficulty getting the head off, but the hands and feet came off like ice cream. Q. (By Mr. Flory) Doctor, if this crime was committed in the course of a delusion, a true delusion, would a person be able to set forth all thee details like he did, attributing them to himself? A. In a way, that would be possible, but no evidence of delusion material showed up. That is, he had no explanation at first. He offered no explanation. `It was a terrible thing, you know. I must have gone berserk. I must have blacked out.' He didn't have any explanation of it then at all. One little thing came up on theI believe it was on the 16th. It appeared in Mr. Deathe's reportthat Mr. William mentioned that he thinks he saw his mother's face and it is kind of a vague response. Did he see his mother's face in Richard? It wasn't quite clear, and then he immediately sort of followed that up by, `Therefore, my mother is responsible for this.' And that may be the very firstthat is the first inkling, the first beginning that I am aware of that he began developing an explanation, which now is well developed. Q. And that was several days after the crime had occurred? A. Right. Q. Would the fact that the defendant removed the identifiable parts of the body, that being the hands with the fingerprints, and the feet with the footprints, and the head with obvious identifying characteristics, would that fact be significant to you in determining whether or not at the time of the crime, immediately thereafter, the defendant understood the nature of his acts? A. It certainly suggests that he knew what he was doing at the time. It's consistent with a remark he made to Mr. Rutledge, I believe, that he was considering turning himself into the police, so he knew, at least at that time, that he had done something wrong. Q. Would the comment about considering turning himself in, would you consider that a significant fact? A. Yes. It means he has some contact with how society operates. You know, he knows there is a police force and knows there are laws. He know he broke a law and the police would be interested. Q. Would the fact that there was an effort made to secret or hide or dispose of evidence be significant in determining the defendant's mental state at the time of the crime? A. Yes, it suggests that he was in sufficient contact with reality and able to make the judgment that he should conceal the crime. Pretty obvious. That is just common sense. William was able to function normally after the murder; he spent a good part of one day showing officers various routes and fishing holes and had no problem communicating with the law enforcement people. The jury also heard William's statements to law enforcement personnel concerning Richard's death. They observed the map William drew of the murder scene showing where the murder took place and where the various body parts were buried, as well as a drawing showing the way he (Richard) looked at 3:04 a.m. (showing a body with arms and legs but no head, hands, or feet). Dr. Modlin, a highly respected psychiatrist, testified that William, at the time of Richard's death, did not meet the requirements for insanity. Dr. Modlin was referring to the M'Naghten test. The evidence in this case is such that a reasonable person could conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that William knew the nature and quality of his act, and that he knew right from wrong with respect to the act.