188 Conn. App. 600
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Gregory Weathers approached a construction site worker asking about work, walked away, then returned and shot the victim multiple times; the victim died. Defendant was arrested shortly after and told police he shot to "settle a labor dispute."
- Police interviewed defendant; he at times appeared disorganized or unresponsive, but waived Miranda rights, understood questions, admitted shooting, and expressed remorse. He also made statements invoking a labor dispute and later reported psychotic symptoms to experts and hospital staff.
- Defendant raised an insanity defense under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-13(a) (cognitive and volitional prongs) and presented two defense experts (neuropsychologist David Lovejoy and psychiatrist Paul Amble) who testified the defendant suffered psychosis and lacked substantial capacity to control his conduct.
- Experts’ opinions relied substantially on the defendant’s self-reports and post‑offense medical records; the state focused cross-examination on inconsistencies, possible malingering, and possible drug intoxication (PCP/synthetic cannabinoids).
- The three-judge trial court found defendant had a psychosis but rejected the volitional prong, concluding defendant acted out of frustration/anger (perceived slight over employment), obeyed police commands, behaved not markedly aberrantly in interview, and had at times embellished or fabricated symptoms.
- Defendant was convicted of murder, criminal possession of a pistol or revolver, and carrying a pistol without a permit; sentenced to a total effective term of 45 years. He appealed arguing (1) the court’s rejection of insanity defense was unsupported and (2) the court erred by deciding sanity without expert support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court’s rejection of volitional insanity (lack of substantial capacity to control conduct) was reasonably supported by the evidence | The court’s findings (nonpsychiatric motive, appropriate behavior post-offense, evidence of malingering/inconsistency) supported rejecting the experts and rejecting insanity | Lovejoy and Amble’s testimony established psychosis that deprived defendant of substantial capacity to control his conduct; no rebuttal experts were offered | Affirmed: Court reasonably weighed evidence, could adopt nonpsychiatric explanation, discount expert opinions tied to defendant’s self-report and inconsistencies |
| Whether the court clearly erred in subordinate factual findings (motive of frustration/anger; normal/unspectacular police interview conduct; fabrication/embellishment of symptoms) | These findings were supported by circumstantial evidence: unemployment stressors, defendant’s own statements about being "brushed off," interview video and testimony, and records suggesting malingering | Defendant argued findings lacked direct support and post-offense embellishment does not prove lack of psychosis at the time of the shooting | Affirmed: findings not clearly erroneous; trier of fact may draw reasonable inferences from conduct before/during/after the offense |
| Whether the court could resolve the ultimate sanity issue without expert rebuttal | Expert testimony is helpful but ultimate issue is for trier of fact; both experts admitted psychosis does not necessarily impair volitional control, supplying a basis for court’s conclusion | Defendant argued once court finds mental illness, impairment of control requires expert proof specific to effects on behavioral control; rejecting both experts left no expert basis for court’s volitional finding | Affirmed: court may accept or reject expert testimony; here experts themselves conceded psychosis does not inevitably impair control, so court had expert support for conclusion |
| Whether appellate deference to trial court’s credibility assessment should yield to de novo review under Lapointe when expert foundations are contested | State relied on standard deference to factfinder credibility determinations | Defendant sought de novo review analogizing to Lapointe v. Commissioner (challenge to expert foundations) to reassess expert opinions without deference | Rejected: Lapointe’s de novo review is limited to specific habeas/Brady contexts; here trial court made factual credibility findings (e.g., demeanor, interview video), so only clear-error review applies |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Patterson, 229 Conn. 328 (1994) (trial court may reject expert opinion founded on self-serving defendant statements)
- State v. DeJesus, 236 Conn. 189 (1996) (factfinder may credit cross-examination undermining defendant’s experts even absent state expert)
- State v. Campbell, 169 Conn. App. 156 (2016) (trier of fact weighs expert sanity testimony; appellate review limited)
- State v. Steiger, 218 Conn. 349 (1991) (affirming rejection of insanity defense where evidence undermined delusional claim)
- State v. Evans, 203 Conn. 212 (1987) (ultimate issue of sanity is for trier of fact despite psychiatric testimony)
- Lapointe v. Commissioner of Correction, 316 Conn. 225 (2015) (de novo review of expert opinion foundations limited to certain habeas/Brady contexts)