Court Opinion

ID: 9765496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:03:57.994903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:10.468452
License: Public Domain

LEIBSON, Justice,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent.
The consequences of a Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI) verdict, and the difference between it and Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity (NGRI), should be explained to the jury because they are technical, statutory terms that would not comport with a juror’s common understanding of the consequences that follow from such verdicts. They should be explained within the judge’s instructions, with the lawyers then permitted to comment so long as the comments are within the context of the instructions. We cannot expect the jury to render a “true verdict” if they are misled or confused about the meaning and effect of the words they must use to express the verdict.
The court that now rejects explanation of these two terms is the same court that embraced truth-in-sentencing by comity in Commonwealth v. Reneer, Ky., 734 S.W.2d 794 (1987), essentially rejecting the argument that the policy of this Court, as expressed in Payne v. Commonwealth, Ky., 623 S.W.2d 867 (1981), is to refuse comment or explanation on the consequences of a verdict. We now permit evidence and comment, much of which is inherently speculative, about potential parole, estimated date of expiration of sentence, defendant’s probation or parole status, etc., none of which was admissible under the holding in Payne.
In Payne, we reasoned:
“The consideration of future consequences such as treatment, civil commitment, probation, shock probation, and parole have no place in the jury’s finding of fact and may serve to distort it.” 623 S.W.2d at 870.
Reneer, supra, and its offspring, Huff v. Commonwealth, Ky., 763 S.W.2d 106 (1989), have rejected the rationale in Payne with far less reason to do so than exists in present circumstances.
In point of fact, this case differs from Payne even if we restrict consideration of additional explanation about “consequences” to the insanity verdict, because in 1982 the General Assembly changed the playing field by introducing this new, technical version of guilty, Guilty But Mentally Ill, into the guilty or not guilty equation. This verdict differs from verdicts of “guilty” or “not guilty,” terms the jury can readily understand without further explanation.
I have no doubt but that many jurors think that finding the defendant Guilty But Mentally Ill means that the defendant will be committed to a mental institution for treatment, instead of prison, thinking they have found the defendant guilty because of mental illness. Few, if any, will realize that the “but mentally ill” finding is, for all practical purposes, empty of legal consequences, that the “court shall sentence a defendant found guilty but mentally ill to the local jail or the Corrections Cabinet in the same manner as a defendant found guilty.” KRS 504.150. The only arguable difference is that during incarceration treatment will be provided if needed and if available. This is really a distinction without a difference because other statutes providing care for the mentally ill cover the same territory.
Likewise, because there is no explanation, no doubt some jurors think a finding of Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity carries with it indefinite commitment to a mental institution, not realizing the defendant will be set free at once if he is not presently so acutely ill as to require involuntary commitment.
The movement throughout the country for GBMI statutes was in response to the public outcry that followed when John W. Hinckley, Jr. was found not guilty by reason of insanity of the attempted assassination of President Reagan. See Guilty But Mentally III: Broadening the Scope of Criminal Responsibility, 44 Ohio St.L.J. 797 (1983). Of course, the Hinckley acquittal followed from the federal rule then in place burdening the prosecution with the almost impossible task of proving a nega*514tive, that the defendant was not insane. This illogical version of the insanity defense was never applied in Kentucky. Our statute, KRS 504.120, places the burden squarely on the defendant, where it belongs, to prove his insanity. The bizarre result in the Hinckley case has always been only a remote possibility in Kentucky, and the Guilty But Mentally Ill statute was at best an unnecessary overreaction. But, since we have this statute, albeit essentially meaningless and inherently confusing, the least we can do is to provide the triers of fact an explanation so they can understand what it means.
This case involves a woman who was suffering from serious mental illness when she killed her child. While the question whether she was so deranged at the precise moment of the act that she cannot be held legally responsible may be in doubt, the evidence of severe mental illness was un-controverted. There is a strong probability that the jury would have found NGRI rather than GBMI, had they been instructed on the meaning of their verdict.
In sum, there is every reason to change the rule in Payne. Since Payne the General Assembly has changed the law in two areas. GBMI is one area. The other is Truth-In-Sentencing.
Justice Vance has written a Concurring Opinion complaining that in a case which is to be rendered the same day as this one, Young v. J.B. Hunt Transportation, Inc., Ky.,-S.W.2d-(1989), “we reached exactly the opposite result.” Although I concur in Young and disagree here, thus presumably achieving a consistency otherwise lacking, to be fair to the writers of both Opinions, and to the court, I hasten to acknowledge that the two cases are not the same. Young v. J.B. Hunt Transportation, Inc. permits appropriate comment on the complexities of a comparative negligence instruction. Unlike the present situation, no additional information from the court is needed to present the issue. Lawyers have always been permitted to comment on the court’s instructions so long as their comments are within, and consistent with, those instructions. The problem in this case was the instructions were insufficient to place the issue before the jury for comment.
In this case the appellant’s counsel first objected to the court’s instruction on Guilty But Mentally Ill and then, after the instruction authorizing the verdict was given over objection, was prevented from comment on the consequences of such a verdict. Unlike the comparative negligence situation, the argument the defendant wanted to make did not relate to any instruction given by the court.
Arguably, there is a problem in this scenario as to whether the error was preserved by adequate objection. But, if not, the combination of circumstances presents a case of “manifest injustice” that should be addressed under RCr 10.26.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial consistent with the views in this Dissenting Opinion.
LAMBERT, J., joins this dissent.