Court Opinion

ID: 9592540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:15:00.065397+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:50.586625
License: Public Domain

Finney, Justice,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, appellant was entitled to a directed verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGBRI).
*532A defendant is NGBRI if, at the time of the commission of the act, he, as the result of mental disease or defect, lacks the capacity to distinguish moral or legal right from moral or legal wrong or to recognize the particular act charged as morally or legally wrong. S.C. Code Ann. § 17-24-10(A) (Supp. 1993). Here, the majority relies on three pieces of evidence which allegedly negate appellant’s showing of insanity: (1) a police officer’s testimony that, shortly after the killings, appellant looked like he knew he had done something wrong; (2) the finding of a knife which appellant could have washed, which could have been used to stab the victims; and (3) appellant’s question, hours after the deaths, as he was being read the warrants, how he “could get out of this.” Viewed in context, none of this evidence is sufficient to present a jury issue on appellant’s sanity. Compare State v. Milian-Hernandez, 287 S.C. 183, 336 S.E. (2d) 476 (1985) (apparent evidence of sanity not inconsistent with appellant’s insanity defense).