Court Opinion

ID: 9731748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:57:17.954423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:18.925573
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion
DeBruler, J.
Appellant objected to the State’s Instruction #4 on the grounds that it was mandatory and that it constituted an unlawful invasion of the province of the jury. In that objection and in his brief, appellant argues that this Instruction singles out a particular piece of relevant evidence and requires that it not be given particular weight. The Instruction states:
“You are instructed that evidence of a low I.Q. in and of itself is not sufficient to negate responsibility for criminal acts.”
The legal test of insanity, which is to be included in an instruction to the jury in applicable cases, adopted by this Court in Hill v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 601, 614, 251 N.E.2d 429, is:
“A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.”
See also Summerlin v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 652, 661, 271 N.E.2d 411. The jury is to apply this test in two steps. In the first, the jury is to determine whether the accused suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the conduct. In the event the jury decides that he was so afflicted, the jury then proceeds to determine if that mental disease or defect rendered him incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his conduct or of conforming his conduct to the requirements of the law. By law, both of these determinations are left exclusively to the jury. The jury is to make these determinations upon consideration of the above legal test and the evidence presented at trial. It is therefore fairly obvious that this Instruction impermissibly requires the jury either to conclude that “low I.Q. in and of itself” is not a *487mental disease or defect, or to conclude that, if “low I.Q. in and of itself” is a mental defect, it does not result in a substantial lack of capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of one’s conduct or to conform one’s conduct to the requirements of the law. In either event the Instruction substitutes the court’s decision for that of the jury and erroneously invades the province of the jury. Turner v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 267, 280 N.E.2d 621; Taylor v. State, (1972) 257 Ind. 664, 278 N.E.2d 273; Pritchard v. State, (1967) 248 Ind. 566, 230 N.E.2d 416.
The legal effect of acquiescing in the giving of this Instruction is to condone a modification of the legal test of insanity adopted in the Hill case. If it be a fact that “low I.Q. in and of itself” can never, when considered alone, be a mental defect or, being a mental defect, cannot render a human being substantially incapacitated to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law, then, indeed it should be elevated to the definitional level and become part of the legal test of insanity. However, since I have no idea what a “low I.Q. in and of itself” is, I cannot agree that it should be so elevated. I would continue to adhere to the present formulation of the legal test and assignment of jury responsibility.
I vote to grant appellant a new trial.
Note. — Reported at 333 N.E.2d 755.