State of Maine v. Mark P. Murphy, 124 A.3d 647

Mark Murphy, committed to Riverview Psychiatric Center with diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder and bipolar disorder with psychosis, attacked a Riverview mental health worker on March 16, 2013, stabbing her with a pen and injuring another worker during the struggle.
Murphy was indicted on three counts for the single incident: two counts of elevated aggravated assault (17-A M.R.S. § 208-B(1)(A) and (B)) and one count of aggravated assault (17-A M.R.S. § 208(1)(A)).
Murphy pleaded not criminally responsible by reason of insanity; two competing experts testified: Dr. Wisch opined Murphy acted from anger and could appreciate wrongfulness, Dr. Voss opined Murphy was psychotic and lacked such capacity.
After a bench trial, the court rejected the insanity defense, found Murphy guilty on all three counts, and imposed concurrent sentences (with most time suspended).
On appeal Murphy challenged (1) the trial court’s handling of waiver of his right to testify, (2) sufficiency of the evidence to reject the insanity defense, and (3) double jeopardy from multiple convictions for one act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver of right to testify	State: represented defendant presumed advised; no error in failing to elicit on record	Murphy: record silent whether he personally waived right to testify; presumption of no waiver	Court: de novo review; represented defendants are presumed advised absent contrary record; no reversal required
Sufficiency re: insanity (not criminally responsible)	State: evidence supported finding defendant could appreciate wrongfulness; court may reject expert favorable to defense	Murphy: Dr. Voss’s testimony compelled conclusion defendant lacked capacity	Court: review in favor of trial court; record did not compel contrary conclusion; trial court permissibly accepted State’s expert
Double jeopardy / duplicative convictions	State: charged alternative theories for single act	Murphy: convicting/sentencing on multiple counts for single act violates double jeopardy	Court: counts were alternative theories of same act; consolidation into single operative conviction required; vacated judgment for resentencing on single count
Sufficiency of serious bodily injury evidence	State: injuries and surgery established serious bodily injury	Murphy: challenged sufficiency	Court: unpersuaded by challenge; conviction on that element sustained

State v. Gurney, 36 A.3d 893 (Me. 2012) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and fact-finder’s role in insanity defense)
State v. Ford, 82 A.3d 75 (Me. 2013) (presumption that represented defendants are advised of right to testify; waiver evaluated under totality)
State v. Tuplin, 901 A.2d 792 (Me. 2006) (discussing balance between waiver of right to testify and privilege against self-incrimination)
State v. Ericson, 13 A.3d 777 (Me. 2011) (de novo review of ultimate waiver issue)
State v. Robinson, 730 A.2d 684 (Me. 1999) (alternative charging and remedy of consolidating duplicative counts to avoid double jeopardy)
State v. Gatcomb, 389 A.2d 22 (Me. 1978) (defendant’s prior commitment does not create presumption of incapacity for criminal responsibility)