Opinion ID: 833872
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defendant's Burden

Text: In this case, defendant attempted to meet her burden through the testimony of several mental health experts, laypersons, and other evidence. Dr. Peggy Heffner is employed by the state of Michigan as a psychologist and has worked at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry since 1976. [30] She specializes in forensic psychology and has evaluated approximately 2000 patients. She testified that defendant was legally insane at the time of the offense. She also stated: My opinion is that at the time of the alleged offense not only was Mrs. Weddell evidencing a mental illness, which is another part of the connection to that, but also as a result of that mental illness she was unable to understand the nature and quality of her behavior or the wrongfulness of her behavior, and she was unable to conform her behavior to the requirements of the law. Dr. Curt Cunningham is an experienced psychiatrist who has treated the defendant for her bipolar disorder since 1998. He has qualified as an expert witness at least half a dozen times and has testified before on the issue of legal insanity. He stated: A. Well, if I were to summarize my opinion about everything that I've said so far, Ms. Weddell at the time of this accident was clearly psychotic. She was delusional. Was not responsible for her behavior. I have absolutely no doubt about that. This was completeThere just simply is no other explanation. So if that's the kind of thing that you were asking me, that's my opinion. Q. All right. And like you said, you've testified before about people's legal insanity at the time of the offense, correct? A. Yes.    Q. Did [defendant] lack the substantial capacity to either appreciate the nature and quality of or the wrongfulness of her conduct, or to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law? A. Yes, she lacked that capacity. Q. Now when you say yes, there are a couple or's and that sort of thing in here, so to break this question up a little bit more: Did she lack the substantial capacity to appreciate the nature and quality of her actions? A. Yes. Q. Did she lack the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct? A. Yes.    Q. More specifically, did she lack the substantial capacity to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law? A. Yes. Dr. Cunningham also testified that defendant lacked the ability to tell the difference between right and wrong on the date of the incident. Dr. Dhanu Mahesh is a staff psychiatrist who saw defendant numerous times while she was in the hospital. The trial court qualified her as an expert in adult psychiatry. In Dr. Mahesh's opinion, defendant was legally insane on the day of the offense: Q. Because of her mental illness, in your professional opinion, did [defendant] lack the capacity to appreciate the nature and quality of her conduct? A. Yes. Q. How do you reach that conclusion? A. Because the mania itself makes people have very poor judgment. Q. In your professional opinion, because of her mental illness, did Ms. Weddell lack the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions? A. Yes. Q. And why do you believe that? A. Because she was in a delusional state and she was not really aware of what she was doing; cognizant of what she was doing. Q. And as a result, was she unable to conform her conduct to the requirements of the law? A. Yes.    Q. Do you believe that she was legally insane on the day of the offense? A. Yes, I believe so. Dr. Julie Gage was the emergency room physician who saw defendant when the police brought her to the hospital. Dr. Gage diagnosed defendant as overtly actively psychotic. She testified that defendant did not know where she was, that her behavior was very disjointed, and that she was disconnected from reality. Defendant continued her ramblings to Dr. Gage about nuclear disaster and millions of years ago. Lance Decker is the mental health facilitator of the psychiatric facility to which defendant was brought after her stay in the hospital. He spent eight hours with defendant on the first day he met her. Mr. Decker testified that, when he met with defendant, she was talking rapidly and not making sense. He also testified that defendant was not orientated to time, date or place and did not know where she was at. Finally, Mr. Decker stated that defendant was not capable of caring for herself in any shape, manner or form. Defendant's husband testified about defendant's history of mental problems, her abnormal behavior just before the day of the incident, and her behavior following the accident. Police officers also testified about defendant's bizarre behavior on the day of the incident. As the Court of Appeals noted, the circumstantial evidence surrounding the incident and testimony from lay persons buttress the testimony from the mental health experts. There was no rational reason for defendant to flee from the police. She had not committed a crime and was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Her behavior was abnormal. She drove into her garage wall. She left the garage door open with lawn chairs strewn across the street. Her bizarre behavior occurring immediately before and after the charged offense only strengthens the mental health experts' determination that defendant was legally insane at the time she committed the offense. Defendant went above and beyond her burden of proving the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. Once she met this burden, the prosecution was required to establish defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. [31]