State v. Dumas, 2012 Ohio 91

Dumas was convicted of felonious assault and DUI after a bench trial.
She pursued an insanity defense (NGRI) arguing she lacked responsibility for her actions.
Medical evaluations indicated DID with multiple alters, including at least seven personalities.
Trial court found she and her alters knew drinking and driving was dangerous and that voluntary intoxication did not negate the requisite mental state.
Evidence showed Dumas remembered drinking alcohol that day and that an alternate personality may have been in control, but the court upheld convictions.
This appeal challenges whether the conviction was against the manifest weight given the DID and insanity evidence; the court affirms the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the conviction against the manifest weight given the NGRI and DID evidence?	Dumas argues the evidence shows she lacked the mental state.	State contends the evidence supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt.	No reversal; convictions not against weight of the evidence.

State v. Thompkins, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 1997) (weighs evidentiary persuasiveness for manifest weight review)
State v. Wilson, 113 Ohio St.3d 382 (Ohio 2007) (thirteenth juror weighing of credibility and evidence)
State v. Johnson, 128 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio 2010) (defines mens rea and R.C. 2901.21 requirements)
State v. Humphries, 51 Ohio St.2d 95 (Ohio 1977) (insanity defense requires preponderance of evidence)
State v. Brown, 5 Ohio St.3d 133 (Ohio 1983) (insanity burden; mental illness reframes culpability)
State v. Grimsley, 3 Ohio App.3d 265 (Ohio 1982) (DID; defendant can be conscious and act voluntarily under control)