William Winn Khine v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 877 S.E.2d 514

On March 10, 2017, William Khine strangled his wife, Khin Shwe; he later called 911 saying voices had "controlled his mind" and told him to kill her.
Police found the body and pajama bottoms used in the strangulation; Khine did not hide evidence and confessed to officers.
Two competence evaluations found Khine competent to stand trial; the court ordered an independent sanity evaluation by Dr. Ann Vanskiver.
Dr. Vanskiver concluded Khine experienced an acute psychotic episode with delusions and auditory hallucinations; she opined he followed a commanding voice and had impaired ability to resist the impulse to kill.
At the bench trial the Commonwealth called a co-worker, Rebecca Simonton, who testified (over objection) that Shwe told her the day before the killing that she planned to tell Khine she wanted a divorce.
The trial court admitted Simonton’s testimony, later struck Khine’s irresistible-impulse insanity defense as a matter of law, convicted Khine of first-degree murder, and sentenced him; the Court of Appeals affirmed admissibility but vacated the conviction and remanded because the trial court applied the wrong standard when striking the insanity defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Simonton’s testimony that Shwe said she planned to tell Khine she wanted a divorce	Testimony is admissible to show Khine’s motive and that Shwe’s statement was communicated to him	Statement is hearsay and inadmissible absent proof it was communicated to Khine	Admissible under Hillmon doctrine as evidence that the declarant acted on her stated intent; no error in admission
Whether trial court properly struck Khine’s irresistible-impulse insanity defense at close of evidence (burden of production)	Commonwealth: Khine failed to make a prima facie showing that he was "totally deprived" of the power to control his actions	Khine: Dr. Vanskiver’s opinion and Khine’s statements met the production burden showing he acted under an irresistible impulse	Trial court erred by not viewing evidence in the light most favorable to Khine; Khine met burden of production and the case is remanded for the court (as factfinder) to determine burden of persuasion
Proper remedy after erroneous strike of insanity defense	Commonwealth: Remand for trial court to decide whether defendant met burden of persuasion (no retrial required)	Khine preferred a new trial but agreed remand to resolve persuasion burden would be acceptable	Court vacated conviction and remanded to permit the trial court to decide whether Khine proved insanity by a preponderance of the evidence

Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hillmon, 145 U.S. 285 (establishes doctrine allowing a declarant’s statement of intent to prove the declarant acted on that intent)
Hodges v. Commonwealth, 272 Va. 418 (adopts Hillmon in Virginia and explains limits where statement must relate to the declarant’s own intent to act)
Clay v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 253 (discusses state-of-mind hearsay exception and admissibility principles)
Vann v. Commonwealth, 35 Va. App. 304 (describes M’Naghten and irresistible-impulse tests in Virginia)
Morgan v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 120 (explains defendant’s prima facie production burden to present insanity evidence)
Brown v. Commonwealth, 68 Va. App. 746 (confirms defendant bears burden of proving insanity by a preponderance of the evidence)