Simon v. State
321 Ga. App. 1
Ga. Ct. App.2013Background
- Simon was tried by jury and found guilty but mentally ill on multiple counts including aggravated assault, aggravated battery, obstruction of an officer, and theft by shoplifting.
- His defense was insanity by delusional compulsion under OCGA § 16-3-3; he sought a directed verdict and challenged jury-burden instructions.
- Evidence showed two shoplifting incidents, subsequent vehicle strikes on a clerk and a store owner, a police chase, assault on officers, and pepper spray restraint.
- Simon’s mother described escalating bizarre behavior and beliefs of possession prior to the offenses; an expert diagnosed schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder with cannabis use.
- The State’s expert disagreed, citing voluntary marijuana use and lack of clear delusional compulsion; trial focused on whether insanity was proven by a preponderance.
- The trial court denied a directed verdict and later instructions disputes; the appellate court affirmed, upholding the verdict and procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Insanity by delusional compulsion sufficiency | Simon argues overwhelming insanity evidence under OCGA 16-3-3. | State contends no clear delusional compulsion established at time of crime. | Insanity not established; no directed verdict required. |
| Jury burden instruction regarding insanity | Trial court failed to reread or clarify burden per insanity defense upon note. | Court properly instructed to apply the written charge; no error. | No error; instruction adequate. |
| Effective assistance of trial counsel | Counsel erred by not seeking targeted insanity-by-delusional-compulsion instruction. | Counsel correctly instructed on insanity law; no prejudice shown. | No ineffective assistance; trial strategy deemed reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. State, 271 Ga. 40 (1999) (redefines standard for insanity defense and sufficiency on appeal)
- Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609 (2012) (delusional-compulsion insanity requires proof of specific elements)
- Keener v. State, 254 Ga. 699 (1985) (jurors may rely on presumption of sanity; overwhelming insanity proof required)
- Brown v. State, 228 Ga. 215 (1971) (delusion must justify the act if true to establish insanity)
- Collins v. State, 283 Ga. App. 188 (2007) (flight can be evidence of guilt; insanity instruction must be properly presented)
- Cotton v. State, 279 Ga. 358 (2005) (written instructions can aid jurors’ understanding when they have difficulty)