Galloway v. State, 2010 Ind. LEXIS 806

Defendant Gregory Galloway was convicted of murder and found guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) in October 2007 for killing his grandmother; the insanity defense was raised at bench trial but rejected; the trial court concluded he suffered from a long history of mental illness (Axis I bipolar disorder) and would be dangerous if released, and based its GBMI conviction on demeanor evidence rather than sanities determinations; three experts for the defense/appellate record opined insanity, while the court-appointed experts provided conflicting or nonconflicting views; Dr. Davidson initially opined sane, later recanted after learning critical facts; eyewitnesses described signs of “losing it” around the time of the stabbing; the defendant had extensive prior treatment contacts and medication noncompliance; after trial, the defendant was indicted and sentenced to 50 years GBMI, with the Court of Appeals affirming, prompting transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court; the Supreme Court reversed, holding the trial court erred by basing the verdict on nonrelevant concerns about the State’s mental health system and by failing to recognize probative evidence supporting insanity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether conflicting evidence supports insanity at the time of the crime	Galloway argues nonconflicting expert opinions support insanity.	State argues the experts' testimony was conflicting or the court could rely on demeanor.	Insanity not supported; conflict indicates sanity.
Role of lay and demeanor evidence when expert testimony is nonconflicting	Galloway asserts lay and demeanor evidence could show insanity despite experts.	State contends demeanor lacks probative value when experts are in conflict.	Where expert opinion is nonconflicting, demeanor evidence must show probative value to create a conflict.
Propriety of trial court considering State's mental health system in judging insanity	District court erred by considering systemic mental health failures as basis for insanity determination.	State contends broader context is permissible.	Courts may not base insanity verdict on future risk or systemic deficiencies; must rely on evidence at the time of the offense.
Standard of review for insanity defense on appeal	Appeal should overturn if evidence, without conflict, shows insanity at time of crime.	Appellate review should defer to jury/trier of fact on credibility and weigh evidence.	Conviction reversed where evidence was without conflict and led to insanity conclusion; deference does not preclude reversal.

Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind.2004) (insanity defense reviewed with deference to factfinder when conflict exists or not)
Gambill v. State, 675 N.E.2d 668 (Ind.1996) (conflicting evidence essential to sustain sanity finding)
Barany v. State, 658 N.E.2d 60 (Ind.1995) (lay testimony can create probative conflict with expert opinion)
Cate v. State, 644 N.E.2d 546 (Ind.1994) (demeanor and other evidence affecting insanity determination)
Rogers v. State, 514 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind.1987) (expert opinion limited; lay evidence can override)
Green v. State, 469 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind.1984) (two or more experts may conflict with other evidence; reliance on lay evidence)
Marley v. State, 747 N.E.2d 1123 (Ind.2001) (no intermediate ground; insanity testing)
Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28 (Ind.1998) (insanity defense framework; GBMI considerations)