William Winn Khine v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 907 S.E.2d 557

William Winn Khine was convicted of first-degree murder for killing his wife, Khin Thuza Shwe, and claimed insanity due to auditory hallucinations commanding the act.
Multiple court-ordered psychological evaluations presented conflicting views on Khine's mental state, with some supporting a diagnosis of psychosis but ambiguity over his ability to resist his impulses.
Khine initially lost on his insanity defense at trial, but the Virginia Court of Appeals remanded the case because the trial court did not view the evidence in the light most favorable to Khine when striking the defense.
On remand, the trial court again found that Khine failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was totally unable to resist the impulse to kill.
Khine appealed, challenging: (1) denial of his motion to reopen evidence to include another psychologist's report, (2) the factual finding rejecting his insanity defense, and (3) the trial court's approach to mitigating evidence at sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Denial of Motion to Reopen Evidence	Evidence from Dr. Sugden should have been considered for justice.	No valid excuse for not admitting the report at trial; due diligence lacking.	No abuse of discretion in denying the motion to reopen.
Insanity Defense – Irresistible Impulse	Evidence showed Khine could not resist the impulses due to psychosis.	Khine failed to show total inability to control his act; actions suggest partial control.	Khine failed to meet burden of persuasion on insanity.
Consideration of All Mitigating Evidence at Sentencing	Trial court failed to consider all expert reports, esp. Dr. Sugden's, as mitigation.	Trial court considered all trial evidence; no duty to revisit unadmitted materials.	No abuse of discretion—trial court considered required factors.
Legal Standard for Irresistible Impulse	Evidence should be taken in light most favorable to Khine.	Trial court used correct standard on remand and considered all presented evidence.	Court applied correct legal standard; no error found.

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda rights required prior to custodial interrogation)
Hillman v. Commonwealth, 145 U.S. 285 (1892) (hearsay exception for statements showing intent)
Taylor v. Commonwealth, 208 Va. 316 (1967) (burden of proof for insanity defense in Virginia)
Shifflett v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 760 (1981) (insanity as affirmative defense, burden on defendant)
Thompson v. Commonwealth, 193 Va. 704 (1952) (defines irresistible impulse for insanity defense)
Rollins v. Commonwealth, 207 Va. 575 (1966) (nature of "impulse" under insanity defense)
Parks v. Commonwealth, 221 Va. 492 (1980) (standard for viewing evidence on appeal in Virginia)
Fitzgerald v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 615 (1982) (no requirement for detailed findings at sentencing)