Opinion ID: 1659727
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: La.Rev.Stat. 14:14 provides:

Text: If the circumstances indicate that because of a mental disease or mental defect the offender was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong with reference to the conduct in question, the offender shall be exempt from criminal responsibility. There is a legal presumption that the defendant is sane and responsible for his or her actions. La.Rev.Stat. 15:432. Accordingly, the defense has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant at the time of the offense was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong with reference to the pertinent conduct. La.Code Crim.Proc. art. 652. To sustain a conviction in which insanity is an issue, the appellate court, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, must determine that a rational trier of fact could have concluded that the defendant did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was insane at the time of the offense. State v. Claibon, 395 So.2d 770 (La.1981); State v. Roy, 395 So.2d 664 (La.1981).