Opinion ID: 2088455
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Sufficiency of the Evidence to Raise the Issue of Insanity

Text: The defendant next contends that the trial justice erred by not instructing the jury on the insanity defense. After both parties rested, the State moved to withdraw from the jury's consideration the issue whether the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time he committed the offense charged. The trial justice granted the motion over the defendant's objection. He found no basis ... where a jury could find by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant's conduct in this case was a result of mental disease or defect as opposed to simple anger or personality disorder that doesn't rise to the degree of mental disease and defect or the result of ingestion of alcohol or drugs as the last witness [Dr. Wood] indicated. To determine whether the failure to instruct on the insanity defense was error, we must decide whether, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the defendant, no factfinder rationally could find by a preponderance of the evidence that at the time of the criminal conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant either lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law or lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. 17-A M.R.S.A. § 39 (1983). [3] The defendant presented two expert witnesses who testified regarding his mental condition in December, 1983. Dr. Charles W. Acker, a clinical psychologist, testified that he found no evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental illness. The other expert, Dr. Wood, opined that the defendant had a paranoid personality disorder. This disorder caused the defendant to have loose or fragmented thinking when he was under stress and generally to have difficulty in interpersonal relationships because he was likely to be distrustful of others. According to Dr. Wood, as a result of this condition, at the time of the killing the defendant suffered a  loosening of control, was  functioning more ... on the psychotic end, and was  approaching a state of mental illness, people with a personality disorder under stress begin to approach a more serious mentally ill condition. (emphasis added). Dr. Wood based his conclusion that the defendant was approaching a mental illness at the time of the killing on the facts that the defendant was under stress, had been consuming alcohol and other drugs such as marijuana and Valium, and was angry. Taken in a light most favorable to the defendant, Dr. Wood's testimony does not establish the existence of a mental disease or defect as defined in subsection 2 of section 39. See supra note 3. His testimony does not go beyond stating that the defendant was approaching a state of mental disease or defect, that he suffered a loosening, not a loss of control and that his condition of stress, consumption of alcohol and drugs made it more difficult for the defendant to exercise self-control. Although we recognize that the medical definition of mental disease or defect may not be identical to the legal definition, we conclude on this record that no factfinder by a preponderance of the evidence rationally could have found the defendant not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Accordingly, the trial justice did not err in removing from the jury's consideration the insanity issue.