Opinion ID: 2219951
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Comments Regarding Defendant's Insanity Defense

Text: Defendant next contends he was denied due process and fundamental fairness where the trial judge informed the sentencing jury that he had rejected the defendant's insanity defense at trial, and where the prosecutor reminded the sentencing jury in closing argument that the trial judge had rejected the insanity defense. According to defendant, those statements improperly demeaned [his] mitigating evidence of mental illness, and punished [him] for exercising his constitutional right to present a defense. The State points out, inter alia, that defense counsel asked the trial court to explain to the jurors why insanity was no longer an issue in the case, and attorney Elmore and the court advised the prosecutor that he could clarify the status of insanity as an issue in closing argument. Thus, the State contends, if there was error, the defense invited the court and prosecutor to commit it. We would agree; however, we conclude there was no error. When the initial eight jurors were selected, they were told that defendant had asserted the defense of insanity and they were questioned about their ability to find defendant not guilty by reason of insanity if the defendant established that defense by a preponderance of the evidence. When the defendant subsequently chose to have the trial court consider and decide whether he was legally insane at the time of the offense, that issue was removed from the jury's consideration, and some explanation became necessary. Recognizing that need, attorney Skelton asked the trial judge to give thought to a potential admonition to the jurors. Skelton explained: I think in fairness to the State as well as the defense, the Court needs to advise them    not that they were selected under    a now nonexistent theory, but something to lighten the blow for both    of us.    And there might be some fallout. I think the likely destination for that fallout is on the defense. But I would like the Court to give some thought to a potential admonition to the jury to straighten them out. Pursuant to that request, the court later submitted its proposed remarks to counsel for the defense and the State. Both defense attorneys indicated they had they had no problem with the content of the court's proposed explanation. The court then read those remarks to the jurors, explaining why they would not be participating in the first two stages of the tripartite capital procedure, and advising them of the findings the court had made in the first two phases. In the course of the court's explanation, the judge told jurors he had rejected defendant's defense of insanity, and thrice read the jurors the statutory definition of insanity. He did not mention the rejection of defendant's plea of guilty but mentally ill, and he did not in any way suggest that defendant's mental condition was irrelevant to the jury's sentencing decision. Moreover, as previously noted, defense counsel's opening statement to the jurors made clear that they could still consider whether defendant suffer[ed] from any mental illness or mental disease or mental defects that affected his behavior. In their closing arguments during the sentencing phase, the parties both acknowledged that insanity was no longer an issue; however, the existence and consequences of defendant's alleged mental or personality disorders were nonetheless the subject of extensive comment. Indeed, after each of two instances when the prosecutor reminded the jury that insanity was no longer an issue, he eventually addressed statutory mitigating factors pertaining to defendant's mental condition. His argument made clear that defendant's mental condition was a viable sentencing issue, but he felt that defendant should receive a death sentence notwithstanding. Finally, the trial court's instructions to the jury also underscored the relevance of defendant's mental condition in the sentencing decision. Under the circumstances, we conclude that the comments of the court and the prosecutor were proper, and no error occurred.