*1 DeMARS, Jeffrey Appellant, Jonathan Minnesota, Respondent.
STATE
No. C8-83-536.
Supreme Court of Minnesota. III, Gen., Humphrey, Atty.
Hubert H. St. Paul, MacGibbon, John E. Sherburne Coun- ty Atty., D. Clough, County Richard Asst. River, Atty., Elk respondent. WAHL, Justice.
Jeffrey appeals from order of County deny- the Sherburne District Court *2 it to the reversal cleaned the knife and returned petition for ing post-conviction his friend, He a new trial. was a former conviction or kitchen. He also called of his on first-degree murder June Ostendorf, convicted of Jeffrey had him of who accused 1981, in which to the court after trial stealing ring belonging to Ostendorf. he suffer- whether was issue was dispute by mother had settled the DeMars’ as not to ing such a defect of reason under DeMars insisted paying Ostendorf $50. that it was nature of his act or know the immediately that come over Ostendorf wrong at the time he stabbed his mother ring. dispute over the Osten- discuss times, causing The trial court her death. upset testified that DeMars sounded dorf he knew the nature of his act so found that finally crying. and was half Ostendorf liability of criminal that he was not relieved changed pants hung up on him. DeMars by illness. DeMars for his act his mental jeans in a near- and threw his blood-soaked mandatory sentence given the life but was approximately 11 by granite quarry. At Security Hospi- at the Minnesota has been apartment, Lauer’s p.m., he returned to days few after the tal in St. Peter since a why asked him he had not whеre Lauer as stabbing, pursuant to civil commitment again changed shirt also. DeMars left his mentally dangerous. ill and We affirm the house, where and returned to his mother's conviction. body drag his mother’s out of he tried to years old the summer of DeMars was 20 the house but could not because it was too discharged the Marine He was heavy. early psychological problems that Corps for approximately p.m., At 11:45 DeMars’ He returned to Cloud to live summer. St. met Marcia returned home and was sister mother, DeMars, and his with his Priscilla DeMars, mothеr by who told her that their sister, He and his mother Marcia DeMars. neighbor’s ran to a was dead. Marcia well, along living get did not so he started house and called Lauer to ask her to call apartment of his brother Steven’s at the neighbors police. Steve. The сalled Lauer, early July. girlfriend, in Debra apartment returned to Lauer’s DeMars belongings remained personal Most of his telephoning walked in while Lauer was at his mother’s house. He her he had killed his moth- Steve. told stabbing, on Prior to the which occurred getting apologized er and for blood on her 27, 1980, give away July began DeMars helped getting car and her involved. Lauer belongings, including some personal his cuts, then him wash his and DeMars went saving for a car. He told cash he had been car. out to wash the blood off Lauer’s going Mark thаt he was to have his brother Lauer testified that DeMars was calm kill someone. In his statement to the throughout this time. hearing a police, he said that he had been during telling him that if he voice this time police, arrived and called the who Steve mother, they did not kill his would both be in Lauer’s kitch- arrived and found DeMars killed. cleaning up. They entered with en still them, guns When he saw DeMars drawn. During evening floor, face, slumped to the covered his watched television with his brother Steve glad even more withdrawn and Lauer. He was said he had killed his mother аnd was during left to boy.” than usual that time. Steve longer was no a “mamma’s He he home, if he go and DeMars asked Lauer warning contin- given a Miranda but go car to to his mother's could borrow her inculpatory statements. The ued to make clothing. gave change housе for a She gave police chief arrived and St. Cloud permission, approximate- left her and he at warning again, which DeMars Miranda ly p.m. he understood. DeMars contin- again said inculpatory At ued to make statements. house, While at his mother’s DeMars was said, “My soul night, that he one got kitchen and a knife from the asleep, hurts.” stabbed her while she was then psychiatric There no had knife tions. other testi- police noticed him legs mony and took at trial. hands and on his
wounds
up to that
calm
hospital. He had been
to a
§
(1982) рrovides:
Minn.Stat.
611.026
agitated and resisted
point, but
became
tried, sentenced,
person
No
shall be
or
hand. He had to
put in his
having sutures
any
punished
mentally
crime while
ill
operating table so
strapped to an
mentally
incapa-
or
deficient so as to be
*3
care for his wounds.
hospital staff could
understanding
proceedings
the
or
ble of
him to the St. Cloud
police then took
The
defense;
making a
he shall
but
not be
at-
Station,
police
the
chief
where
Police
liability except
from
excused
criminal
him. DeMars’
tempted to interview
upon proof that at the time of commit-
relating to his moth-
questions
response to
alleged criminal
ting the
act he was la-
teeth,
his
grit
growl, roll
his
er was
reason,
boring under such a defect of
irrational.
his fists and become
eyes, clench
сauses,
of these
to know
from one
as not
officer,
original arresting
Finally, the
act,
the nature of his
or that
it was
acquainted, was able
DeMars was
whom
wrong.
him. DeMars de-
statement
from
take a
night
kept re-
underlying
principle
actions that
this
of
his
The rationale
scribed
The
making
law,
him do it.
ferring
recognized
English
to voices
first
in
which was
the knife he
morning he identified
during
century1
next
the 13th
and which
law
stabbing. His
subse-
the
behavior
used for
part of
since its
has been a
Minnesota law
irrational and
this time became
quent
succinctly stated in
inception, has been
1,
was
August DeMars
uncontrollable. On
Note,
Changes
Responsibility:
in
“Criminal
dangerous.
mentally ill and
as
committed
Insanity
‘Guilty
Defense and the
But
the
hospital in St. Pe-
he
at the
When
arrived
Response,” 21
L.J.
Mentally Ill’
Washburn
in
active
ter,
diagnosed
being
as
he was
515,
(1982):
516
psychosis was еven-
The
psychotic state.
a
principle that one who commits
The
psy-
by large doses of a
tually controlled
insane should not be
criminal act while
chotropic medicine.
criminally responsible for the act
held
trial,
Doheney, a clinical
Dr.
At
Stеven
person
that such a
stems from the view
hospital, testi-
security
the
psychiatrist at
free
nor
will
has neither criminal intent
schizophren-
paranoid
is a
fied that DeMars
Punish-
commits the act.
at the time he
and,
Doheney’s opinion, was in an
in
ic
person
therefore be
ing such a
would
time of the
psychotic state at the
active
and would
“morally impermissible,”
probably
DeMars
stabbing. He said that
purpose.
serve no societal
it
killing his mother and that
knew he was
held, however, that even
cases have
Our
legally wrong
that he hаd no con-
but
may
suffering from
though a defendant
did not know it
over his actions and
trol
illness,’he may not be excused
mental
the
morally wrong. At the
of
un-
611.026
liability under section
criminal
complete control
killing,
the voices had
a de-
illness caused such
less that mental
He could not make a con-
DeMars.
over
the inci-
the time of
that at
fect of reason
Schwartz, a foren-
choice. Dr. Carl
scious
the na-
dent,
did not know
the defendant
that DeMars
psychiatrist, also testified
sic
State
wrong.
it was
or that
ture of his act
and,
in
paranоid
schizophrenic
is
a
48,
331, 334, 246 N.W.2d
Bott,
310 Minn.
psy-
in an active
opinion, was
Schwartz’s
(1976).
51
He
killed his mother.
chotic state when he
the trial court
before
The issue
that,
knew his ac-
although DeMars
said
this court
post-conviction court
before
thought them
legally wrong,
were
tions
knew his actions
DeMars
obeying
morally right
he was
now is whether
to be
because
his moth-
the time he killed
wrong at
auditory
hallucina- were
the commands
1326,
Law 125
and the Criminal
England, by
Mental Disorder
absolute "madness” was
In
charge.
(1925).
complete
to a criminal
J.
defense
Glueck,
(1955);
Biggs,
Guilty
S.
Mind 83
252,
Mytyсh,
State v.
they
Minn.
testified that
psychiatrists
Both
er.
(1972).
case,
In
knew that he was stab- N.W.2d
this
the
thought DeMars
police
weighed
the
could
the evidence and deter-
bing his mother and
factfinder
They thought,
prove by
his actions.
DeMars did not
punish him for
mined that
active
however,
was in an
preponderance
of the evidence that he was
stabbing and
during
state
the
time he
psychotic
mentally ill at
stabbed his
any capacity for moral
had lost
of the record convinc-
therefore
mother. Our review
according to the ex-
Morally,
judgment.
thаt there was sufficient evidence to
es us
witnesses,
thought he was
pert
support
trial court’s determination.
right thing.
doing the
behavior
and after
Given DeMars’
before
stabbing, may may not have been
or
testimony
rejected
court
The trial
psychotic state. There is nо
in an active
in an
psychiatrists
that DeMars was
case, however,
compelling evidence in this
stabbing.
during the
psychotic
active
state
factfinder’s conclu-
for us to reverse the
All
to other evidence.
It looked instead
sions.
*4
persons who had contаct with
the
stabbing,
the
Debra
just before and after
determination,
reaching
the
In
its
DeMars,
DeMars,
Lauer,
Marcia
Steven
rejected
testimony of the
trial court
the
officers,
that De-
police
testified
and the
psychiatrists and relied on DeMars’
two
calm until several
Mars’ behavior was
statement,
hurts,”
“My
and the testi
soul
he killed his mother. Steven
hours after
attempts
and
to
mony of DeMars’ calmness
the
Lauer said that
DeMars and Debra
case,
up
In a criminal
cover
his actions.
that
change from his normal behavior was
by exрert
is not
testi
the factfinder
bound
evening.
quiet than usual that
he was more
only experts
the
to testi
mony, even where
however,
said,
They
that
there
both
fy support
assertion of
the defendant’s
be-
nothing unusual about his behavior
Hoskins,
v.
illness. State
mental
usually very quiet. DeMars
he was
cause
111, 137-38, 193 N.W.2d
Minn.
body. He
dispose
to
of his mother’s
tried
(1972).
credibility of the witnesses and
The
granite
jeans into a
threw his blood-soaked
given
testimony
their
are
weight
the
to be
off
quarry
tried to wash the blood
and
by
made
the factfind
determinations to be
police
After the
arrived
Lauer’s car.
and circumstances in
er. Given the facts
to
calm and able to communi-
continued
case,
say
the trial court
this
we cannot
that
rationally.
he became com-
cate
Before
assigned to the
wrong
weight
in the
it
uncontrollable, he re-
pletely irrational and
testimony.
psychiatrists’
question
police
a
officer
sponded to a
particularly
a
difficult and
This is
“My
hurts.” The trial
by saying,
soul
reviewing
troubling
After
the record
case.
that, given all the testimo-
court concluded
favorably
viewing the evidence most
to
and
at the time of
stab-
ny, DeMars knew
verdict, however, we hold that
support the
legally and
bing
killing his mother was
support
to
was sufficient evidence
there
epi-
psychotic
morally wrong and that his
the trial court’s determination
begin
after the
sode did nоt
until sometime
it
of his act and that was
knew the nature
stabbing.
crimi
that he was not relieved of
wrong so
Minnesota, a defendant must
In
by
illness.
liability for his act
his mental
nal
at
of the
prove mental
illness
time
Affirmed.
evidence.
by
preponderance
a
of the
crime
469, 472 n. 3
Mallеy, 285 N.W.2d
v.
State
TODD,
(concurring specially).
Justice
rigor
(Minn.1979).
court conducts “a
This
of this decision.
I concur in the results
to determine
review of the record
ous
However,
of
evidence,
I
out that the use
would
direct and circum
whether
testimony relative to the de-
psychiatric
stantial,
favorably
support
most
viewed
by
governed
our
insanity is now
permit
fense of
finding
guilt, was sufficient to
a
of
of
change in our rules
its conclusion.”
decisions
the trial court
to reach
a
mandate
bifur-
ORDER
procedure which
criminal
Bouwman, 328
v.
cated trial. See State
matter
above-entitled
comes before
(Minn.1982);
State
N.W.2d
Hoff-
upon
stipulation
par-
this court
(Minn.1982);Minn.R.
man,
it is in his best interest to enter into this stipulation,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY by AND STIPULATED AGREED undersigned between the as follows: Respondent 1. understands has rights having charges certain relаted to unprofessional against of conduct him Application for the In the Matter of the by Lawyers Respon- heard Professional ARONSON, Terrence DISCIPLINE OF prior sibility filing Board Panel to the Attorney at Law of the State action, petition disciplinary for as set Minnesоta. Lawyers forth in the Rules on Profes- (RLPR). Responsibility sional Pursuant No. C4-84-1161. 10(a),RLPR, parties agree to Rule Supreme of Minnesota. Court dispense panel proceedings under 9, RLPR, respondent agrees Rule filing petition the immediate of a *5 action, disciplinary petition, hereinafter Supreme in the Minnesota Court. upon Respondent 2. understands that filing stipulation peti- of this public record. tion this matter will be Respondent understands that he 3. rights pursuant to Rule has certain rights, RLPR. He waives these which right hearing to a before include petition; to have the refer- referee on the findings and conclusions and a ee make disposition; contest recommended conclusions; findings and to a such upon supreme court hearing before record, arguments. Re- briefs and hereby admits service sрondent disciplinary action. petition right an- Respondent waives his unconditionally admits the alle- swer petition Director’s which gations of the follows: summarized as may be neglected a human Respondent a. misrepresented to the case and rights complaint filed a that he had client Rights Department of Human 1-102(A)(4),(5) and of DR in violation Re- (6), Professional Minnesota Code of (MCPR). sponsibility