Opinion ID: 2615040
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sanity when crimes committed

Text: Harkness contends the evidence was insufficient for a jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that he was sane at the time the crimes were committed. At trial, his sole defense was insanity. Kansas follows the M'Naghten test. Under the M'Naghten test for criminal insanity, a defendant is to be held not criminally responsible where he does not know the nature and quality of his act or where he does not know right from wrong with respect to that act. State v. Baker, 249 Kan. 431, Syl. ¶ 10, 819 P.2d 1173 (1991). The jury was instructed accordingly. The standard of review for insufficient evidence claims 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. Baker, 249 Kan. 431, Syl. ¶ 11. With regard to the burden of proof in a sanity case, we have stated: ``[T]he state is not required in the first instance to introduce evidence to prove sanity, for the law presumes that all persons are sane, and this presumption of sanity takes the place of evidence in the first instance. It answers for evidence of sanity on the part of the state. But if evidence is introduced which tends to shake this presumption, the jury must then consider the same, and its effect upon the main issue of guilty or not guilty, and if upon considering the whole of the evidence introduced on the trial, together with the presumption of sanity, the presumption of innocence, and all other legal presumptions applicable to the case under the evidence, there should be a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant is same or insane, he must be acquitted.... [The defendant] is required only to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. The burden of proof is always upon the state, and never shifts from the state to the defendant.'' [Citations omitted.] Baker, 249 Kan. at 450-51. The evidence was conflicting whether Harkness was sane when the crimes were committed in June 1981. The State presented evidence from Dr. Charles Donaldson Glazzard, a psychiatrist in private practice; from the victims; and from police officers. The defense presented testimony from Harkness' parents and from Dr. William V. McKnelly, an associate professor in psychiatry at the University of Kansas Medical Center. A jury may consider the testimony of both expert and lay witnesses on the issue of insanity. Baker, 249 Kan. 431, Syl. ¶ 12. Dr. Glazzard, after examining the police reports and medical records from the various hospitals at which the defendant had been treated, as well as interviewing the defendant, concluded that Harkness knew the difference between right and wrong. The doctor gave the following reasons for his conclusion: History reveals from the medical records, and from Mr. Harkness specifically, that the concept of right and wrong was known by him as he was growing up. .... Mr. Harkness recalls being told by parents, and being disciplined if he went against what he was told, about the difference between right and wrong when he was young, a youngster. At the time of the events, Mr. Harkness feels that he was under the pressure of God telling him to do certain things. At the same time he stated that he had been told earlier by God, when he was at K.U. Medical Center, to do those things, literally to commit rape, but didn't want to do it because he was afraid then of what might happen to him, essentially saying that was not right to do that. On this occasion he apparently waited two weeks after having heard the voice again to tell him to do the rapes, because at the times he might have approached a girl, there were too many people around, he was afraid of being caught. .... [T]he fear of being caught suggested that knowing that what he was about to do was wrong and that it might lead to punishment for him. .... [F]rom the records, from the police records, and from our communication, Mr. Harkness took precautions to avoid being seen while driving to the areas where he was, during the act, the alleged act. And Mr. Harkness allegedly ran away following the event or the incidents. He apparently concealed his gun, according to the records. One of the girls apparently screamed and Mr. Harkness covered her mouth to prevent her from screaming. Mr. Harkness said, when I asked him more directly about the incidents that, quote, `I knew it was wrong, but I was told to do it, or I might go to hell.' Unquote. Larned records, in terms of knowing the difference between right and wrong, having to do with feeling guilty, for example, about certain acts, suggests that he was aware of the difference between right and wrong, saying, one, `I'm guilty. I don't know why, I just did it. I wouldn't call myself crazy, I just wanted to do it.' And later on demonstrated guilt feelings on the part of previously sexual activities, knowing the difference in his mind between right and wrong. And in the psychological testing August 19, 20, [1981] when asked if he knew that rape was illegal, he said, `Yes, I like to touch girls and look at them.' Dr. Glazzard acknowledged the defendant was suffering from mental illness, the most recent diagnosis at Larned being schizophrenia, which the doctor described as a split between thoughts and feelings. According to Dr. Glazzard, the fact that Harkness had been diagnosed as schizophrenic did not mean that he, per se, was unable to distinguish between right and wrong. One of the victims, T.K., testified that, during the approximately two and one-half hours she was with Harkness, his conversation was responsive and appropriate. She never saw any indication the defendant did not know what he was doing. She believed that he knew the difference between right and wrong and that he knew what he was doing was wrong because he lied about his name, concealed the gun, lied about where they were going, blindfolded her so she could not look at him, and ran away. The State emphasizes that the testimony of all the victims indicated the defendant was lucid, conversant and plan or goal-directed in his behavior toward them. One of the officers searching for the suspect testified that as he was driving in his vehicle he saw Harkness walking along the shoulder of the road. The officer had been given a physical and clothing description of the suspect. When the officer slowed down, the defendant ran. The officer shouted for Harkness to stop; however, the defendant paid no attention. Shortly thereafter, Harkness pointed a gun in the officer's direction. The officer fired at the defendant, but missed. Although Harkness escaped then, he was arrested shortly thereafter. Harkness' father testified that he did not believe his son knew right from wrong part of the time and that the only time he believed his son could control his actions was if his son was on his medication. The defendant's mother testified that her son was not taking his medication on June 2, 1981. She also said she did not believe her son knew the difference between right and wrong because he was following what he thought were God's orders. When she questioned him about what had happened prior to his being sent to Larned for evaluation, he told her, God told me to do it. Dr. McKnelly testified that through the years he has been asked, usually by the State, many hundreds of times to determine whether a defendant was insane. He said that in only 5 to 10 cases did he believe a defendant was insane. According to the doctor, Harkness is an incurable schizophrenic and will not know the difference between right and wrong now or in the foreseeable future, unless he is medicated, and even then it's equivocal. Dr. McKnelly stated, He's as crazy as they come. The doctor acknowledged that, prior to interviewing the defendant personally, he thought it highly unlikely, based upon the medical records, that the defendant knew the difference between right and wrong. Harkness argues the key to whether he could understand the nature and quality of his acts was whether he was medicated sufficiently at the time the crimes were committed to overcome the hallucinations from which he suffered. He relies upon the testimony of his witnesses, particularly Dr. McKnelly, to argue the evidence was insufficient for a jury to find him sane. The defendant's argument fails to take into account the testimony of the State's witnesses. In essence, he is arguing credibility of the witnesses. It is not a function of this court to judge credibility. After reviewing all the evidence, there is substantial evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, for a rational factfinder to conclude that Harkness knew the difference between right and wrong and was not insane at the time of committing these offenses.