State v. Erick O. Magett
850 N.W.2d 42
Wis.2014Background
- Defendant Erick Magett, an inmate, was convicted in the guilt phase of a bifurcated trial for battery by a prisoner after punching an officer during a force extraction; he claimed a brief "blackout" for a few seconds during the act.
- Magett pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect (NGI) and sought to present his NGI defense in the responsibility phase; the court had appointed a psychologist (Dr. Lewis) whose report did not support NGI.
- Defense indicated it would offer only Magett’s own testimony (that he was "out of it"/blacked out) and the video already shown in the guilt phase; Magett elected not to introduce any private expert report at trial.
- Before the responsibility phase began, the circuit court ruled expert testimony was required and that Magett was not competent to testify about whether he lacked substantial capacity; the court dismissed the NGI plea and entered judgment on the guilty verdict.
- The court of appeals affirmed as harmless error; the Wisconsin Supreme Court granted review and affirmed, holding (1) expert testimony is not always required, (2) defendants are competent to testify about mental condition but not entitled to give unlimited lay opinion, (3) courts should normally allow presentation of responsibility-phase evidence before dismissal, and (4) here NGI evidence was legally insufficient so any error was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Magett's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony is required to prove NGI in responsibility phase | Magett: Not required; his testimony and video suffice | State/Circuit Ct: Expert testimony (medical opinion) is required to prove mental disease/defect and lack of substantial capacity | Court: Expert testimony is not categorically required; lay testimony (including defendant) may suffice in some cases, but expert evidence is often necessary in practice; the circuit court erred to the extent it imposed a categorical expert requirement. |
| Whether defendant competent to testify about his mental condition and capacity | Magett: He is competent to testify to his condition (blackout) and inability to recall | State/Circuit Ct: Defendant not qualified to opine on whether he lacked substantial capacity; that is an expert issue | Court: Defendant is competent to testify, but as a lay witness he cannot offer unrestricted expert opinions; lay opinion limited to what is rationally based on perception and helpful. |
| Whether court erred in dismissing NGI plea before responsibility-phase evidence presented | Magett: Dismissal premature; denial of chance to present testimony is reversible error | State/Circuit Ct: Evidence already presented in guilt phase and expert report negated NGI; dismissal proper | Court: Courts should normally allow defendant to present responsibility-phase evidence before ruling; dismissal prior to defendant presenting evidence was error in procedure but here harmless given insufficiency of NGI evidence. |
| Whether any errors were harmless | Magett: Errors harmed his substantive rights; not harmless | State: Errors harmless because evidence insufficient to support NGI | Court: Harmless — no reasonable jury could have found NGI on these facts (planning, preparatory acts, Dr. Lewis's report, testimony inconsistent with unconsciousness). |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Leach, 124 Wis.2d 648 (1985) (a favorable expert opinion is not indispensable to a finding of mental disease or defect; episodic amnesia alone is insufficient)
- State v. Perkins, 277 Wis.2d 243 (Ct. App. 2004) (expert testimony required only when issue is beyond jurors' common knowledge)
- State v. Kandutsch, 336 Wis.2d 478 (2011) (trial court must apply correct standard and explain reasoning when requiring expert evidence)
- Simpson v. State, 62 Wis.2d 605 (1974) (lay witnesses may give opinion testimony but no categorical right to opine on insanity)