State v. Corey R. Kucharski, 866 N.W.2d 697

Background

Kucharski was charged with two counts of first-degree intentional homicide with a dangerous weapon; he pled NGI and no contest to guilt, waiving jury on responsibility.
Three doctors for the defense opined Kucharski lacked substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness or conform to law due to schizophrenia; the State did not present witnesses disputing mental illness.
The circuit court found Kucharski met the burden of responsibility, rejecting the defense opinions and concluding he understood wrongfulness and could conform his conduct to the law.
The court of appeals granted a new trial under Wis. Stat. § 752.35, arguing it was probable justice miscarried because Kucharski met his burden and the defense evidence dominated the record.
The supreme court reversed the court of appeals, holding the appellate court improperly reweighed the evidence and did not apply the correct standard of review for burden of proof on mental responsibility.
The remand was ordered for the court of appeals to address remaining unaddressed claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 752.35 reversal was proper.	Kucharski argued appellate weighing of evidence showed miscarriage of justice.	Kucharski claimed the court of appeals correctly weighed the evidence in his favor.	No; discretionary reversal was misapplied; no probability of different retrial result.
Whether appellate court properly treated burden of proof on mental responsibility as a question of fact.	Kucharski contends burden determination is a factual issue reviewed for clear error.	State argues appellate review can reweigh evidence within discretionary reversal.	Proper standard is a factual review for clear error; court of appeals erred by de novo weighing.
Whether expert opinions relying on defendant’s statements should bind the trial court.	Defense experts’ opinions were credible and uncontradicted.	Expert opinions need not be accepted if the trier of fact disbelieves them, especially when based on defendant-supplied information.	Experts are not binding; trial court may weigh evidence and credibility; appellate substitution of judgment is improper.
Whether there was evidence of alternative rational explanations for the killings.	Defense suggested no rational alternative explanation; lack of evidence supports NGI findings.	Absence of a rational alternative does not compel finding lack of responsibility.	Not dispositive; the weighing of all evidence governs the burden determination.
Whether Kemp and related precedent support reversal in the interest of justice.	Kemp supports reversal where evidence predominates in defendant’s favor.	Kemp is distinguishable; here evidence did not warrant new trial.	Kemp supports, but court must apply proper standard and not merely reweigh; here reversal was inappropriate.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Kemp, 61 Wis. 2d 125 (1973) (reversal in interest of justice based on weight of the evidence in Kemp fact pattern)
State v. Sarinske, 91 Wis. 2d 14 (1979) (jury may reject defense experts relying on defendant-provided information)
State v. Hintz, 200 Wis. 636 (1930) (evidence weighing is generally jury function; miscarriage often justifies new trial)
Kucharski, State v., No. 2013AP557-CR, unpublished slip op. (Wis. Ct. App. May 6, 2014) (affirmed appellate weighing framework; relied on Kemp and related cases)
State v. Avery, 345 Wis. 2d 407 (2013) (discretionary reversal power coterminous with 751.06; limits considered but broad discretion remains)