420 P.3d 172
Wyo.2018Background
- Doyle Gabbert committed multiple violent offenses over three days in August 2016 while on parole, including shooting at a motorist, brandishing a gun and demanding keys, stealing vehicles, and attempting further theft while fleeing police.
- Charged with eight felonies: three counts aggravated assault/battery, one count aggravated robbery, two counts theft, unlawful possession of a firearm, and possession of a deadly weapon with unlawful intent.
- Gabbert pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental illness or defect (NGMI). The court ordered a statutorily required evaluation at the Wyoming State Hospital.
- Dr. Alex Yufik, the designated forensic examiner, diagnosed antisocial personality disorder and an amphetamine-type substance disorder, concluded Gabbert’s psychotic symptoms were substance-induced, and opined Gabbert retained capacity to appreciate wrongfulness and conform conduct to law.
- After a bench trial the court found Gabbert guilty on all counts and rejected the NGMI defense; Gabbert appealed, arguing the court erred in finding he failed to prove NGMI.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in rejecting Gabbert's NGMI defense | Gabbert argued the court wrongly found he failed to prove by a preponderance that, due to mental illness/deficiency, he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness or conform conduct | State argued evidence (including examiner's opinion and circumstantial evidence of awareness and evasion) supported rejection; standard of review should defer to factfinder | Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to State, a rational trier of fact could conclude Gabbert failed to prove NGMI by a preponderance |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Flake, 88 S.W.3d 540 (Tenn. 2002) (adopted a “reasonableness” standard for appellate review of rejection of insanity defense)
- United States v. Barton, 992 F.2d 66 (5th Cir. 1993) (articulated a Jackson-style reasonableness standard for reviewing insanity-findings)
- Fuss v. State, 519 S.E.2d 446 (Ga. 1999) (applied light-most-favorable-to-state standard to insanity defense burden)
- State v. Lively, 921 P.2d 1035 (Wash. 1996) (applied similar standard to affirmative defenses where defendant bears burden)
- May v. State, 62 P.3d 574 (Wyo. 2003) (described the usual sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard applied in criminal appeals)