302 A.3d 780
Pa. Super. Ct.2023Background
- On Jan. 15, 2018, two relatives (Richard and Sharon Fells) were found stabbed to death at 145 Marcelle Terrace; investigators recovered blood evidence, knives, bloody shoe prints, and a bloody fingerprint preliminarily identified as matching Appellant Lancelot Fortune.
- Police found Fortune at his Stroudsburg address with scratches and blood-stained clothing/shoes; a Miranda waiver statement contained admissions that he stabbed both victims, disposed of evidence, and fled to Philadelphia.
- Fortune was initially found incompetent after a MHPA hearing (diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia by Dr. Robert Morrow), committed for treatment, and later found restored to competency in Sept. 2019.
- Fortune filed notice of intent to assert an insanity defense and proffered Dr. Morrow and lay witnesses; Dr. Morrow diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia but opined Fortune was not M’Naghten legally insane (recommended “guilty but mentally ill”).
- The trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion in limine and precluded an insanity defense because Fortune’s only expert concluded he was not legally insane and lay testimony alone could not establish the requisite causal link to M’Naghten incapacity.
- Fortune was tried, convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of tampering with/fabricating evidence, sentenced to life without parole, and appealed challenging the insanity ruling and denial of the Public Defender’s motion to withdraw for conflict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant could present an insanity defense at trial despite his expert concluding he was not legally insane | Commonwealth: Defense expert’s opinion that defendant was not M’Naghten insane makes the defense legally insufficient; lay testimony cannot substitute for an expert showing causal link | Fortune: May present insanity to jury using Dr. Morrow’s schizophrenia diagnosis, lay witnesses, and his own testimony notwithstanding expert’s ultimate conclusion | Court: Affirmed exclusion — where the sole expert negates legal insanity, lay testimony cannot supply the necessary expert causal link; insanity defense precluded |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying Public Defender’s office motion to withdraw for conflict | Commonwealth (and court): Disagreement over strategy is not an actual conflict; no evidence counsel represented adverse interests; reassignment within office appropriate | Fortune: Public Defender’s office conflicted because he distrusted assigned counsel; Watson single‑office rule should disqualify entire office | Court: No abuse of discretion — defendant’s strategic disagreements do not establish an actual conflict; denial of withdrawal proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Rabold, 951 A.2d 329 (Pa. 2008) (sanity presumptions and burden to prove insanity)
- Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (U.S. 2006) (general premise that criminal defendants are presumed sane for liability)
- Commonwealth v. Faulkner, 595 A.2d 28 (Pa. 1991) (defense expert testimony that denies M’Naghten insanity is not relevant to guilt phase and may be excluded)
- Commonwealth v. Hamilton, 329 A.2d 212 (Pa. 1974) (presence of severe mental disease is not automatically M’Naghten insanity)
- Commonwealth v. Yasipour, 957 A.2d 734 (Pa. Super. 2008) (distinguishing cognitive vs. moral incapacity prongs of M’Naghten)
- Commonwealth v. Andre, 17 A.3d 951 (Pa. Super. 2011) (explaining the two prongs of the insanity defense under M’Naghten)