Opinion ID: 2210518
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Mental Illness

Text: Appellant claimed that he demonstrated his legal mental illness by a preponderance of the evidence and that his convictions should therefore be reversed. A defendant must demonstrate that at the time of committing the alleged criminal act [she or he] was laboring under such defect of reason, from [mental illness or deficiency] as not to know the nature of the act, or that it was wrong in order to be excused from criminal responsibility because of mental illness. Minn.Stat. § 611.026 (1990). [11] In Minnesota, a defendant must prove mental illness at the time of the crime by a preponderance of the evidence. DeMars v. State, 352 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn.1984) (citing State v. Malley, 285 N.W.2d 469, 472 n. 3 (Minn.1979)). Where a criminal defendant who raised the defense of mental illness at trial challenges his conviction, [t]his court conducts `a rigorous review of the record to determine whether the evidence, direct and circumstantial, viewed most favorably to support a finding of guilt, was sufficient to permit the [fact finder] to reach its conclusion.' Id. (quoting State v. Mytych, 292 Minn. 248, 252, 194 N.W.2d 276, 279 (1972)). This court has consistently held that the issue of legal mental illness is a question for the finder of fact to resolve. See State v. Gore, 451 N.W.2d 313, 316 (Minn.1990) (expert opinion testimony did not compel verdict of not guilty by reason of mental illness); State v. Schneider, 402 N.W.2d 779, 786 (Minn.1987) (legal mental illness is a jury question); State v. Rawland, 294 Minn. 17, 45, 199 N.W.2d 774, 789 (1972) (ultimate determination as to legal mental illness rests with the fact finder). As well, we have granted broad deference to the fact finder in determining the appropriate weight to assign expert psychiatric testimony. See DeMars v. State, 352 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Minn.1984) (fact finder not bound by expert testimony even where that testimony supports finding of legal mental illness); State v. Linder, 304 N.W.2d 902, 907 (Minn.1981) (fact finder is the judge of the credibility of expert testimony regarding mental illness). At trial, appellant offered the expert opinion of one psychiatrist who testified that appellant did not understand that killing his family was wrong at the time he did so. In response, the state offered expert testimony from two psychiatrists who concluded that appellant knew what he was doing at the time of the murders and knew that it was wrong. Further, the state introduced testimony from two other psychiatrists who, while not reaching an ultimate conclusion as to appellant's legal mental illness, substantially undercut the testimony of appellant's psychiatric expert. We do not agree with appellant that the evidence of his legal mental illness as defined by Minn.Stat. § 611.026 (1990) viewed most favorably toward a finding of guilt compels a verdict of not guilty due to mental illness. We therefore affirm his convictions.