Court Opinion

ID: 9853448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:49:02.730358+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:49.017822
License: Public Domain

Ness, Justice:
*187I concur in the majority’s discussion of the burden of proof in insanity cases, but I disagree with the majority’s finding that there was no evidence of appellant’s sanity at the time of the crimes.
The evidence presented by the State indicated that appellant exhibited no abnormal behavior during the bus ride from Washington to Charlotte. The witness who gave this testimony sat next to appellant during the bus ride from Washington, D. C. to Charlotte, and engaged in conversation with appellant. The men conversed in Spanish, their native language. The witness had some. additional conversation with appellant following the shooting.
In my opinion, this testimony was some evidence of appellant’s sanity at the time of the shooting. In light of this testimony, I believe the trial judge properly found that the issue of appellant’s sanity was for the jury.
Additional evidence of appellant’s sanity was his flight from the scene of the crime. State v. Thompson, supra. The majority dismisses this evidence because of the circumstances surrounding appellant’s flight. It was for the jury to evaluate the circumstances and decide in light of other testimony, what weight should be given this evidence.
The maj ority asserts that its opinion does not require the State to produce expert testimony on the issue of sanity whenever the defendant does so. While I concede the majority has not established a per se rule, it has achieved the same result when it infers that lay testimony of a defendant’s sanity, similar to that introduced here, is no evidence of sanity.
I would affirm the conviction.
Littlejohn, C. J., concurs.