*1 28 charge burglary, of free on bond on felony, at the time the offense
a Class C appeal committed. In in this
involved entry, pro we see
view of this nunc tunc this case to the trial
no reason to remand
court. affirmed.
The trial court is Muncie, Quirk, appellant. for Jack Gen., Pearson, Linley Atty. E. John D. DeBRULER, PIVARNIK Shuman, Gen., Indianapolis, Deputy Atty. JJ., DICKSON, appellee. for C.J., SHEPARD, participating.
SHEPARD, Chief Justice. Appellant Timothy Haggard P. was tried attempted and convicted of before murder, felony. A a class Ind.Code 35- §§ 42-1-1, (Burns Repl.). 1985 twenty years him trial court sentenced prison. question appeal The sole whether HAGGARD, Appellant Timothy P. provided any proba- (Defendant Below), jury could tive value from which a draw the inference that entertained Indiana, Appellee STATE supporting state the verdict of (Plaintiff Below). guilty mentally ill. 1987, No. March went to see 18S00-8804-CR-406. On his wife Terri and their children. He was Supreme Indiana. Court of separated from them his wife had because marriage. petitioned for dissolution of the bed, helping put the children to After Periodically
Haggard wanted to talk. dur- ing the conversation he went to check on the children. appeared he
On one occasion when children, grabbed going to look Terri around the neck. He tried to cut her pocket a small knife. The throat with the attack awoke the older child noise from neighbor’s help. who ran to the house for neighbor arrived a chair at and threw allowing Haggard, temporarily Terri to es- cape. Haggard pursued his outside wife stopped by the house but was another neighbor who fired a shot with a pistol. Haggard retreated to his car and away. drove Later he was found uncon- scious; an examination determined ingested drugs. had a number of different relied defense however, jury, found him at trial. Haggard argues ill. *2 in quite He and he seemed calm and con- contrary to law. [sic] the verdict that preponder- trol.” by a he established maintains at the insane was
ance evidence neighbor on the scene told of The second He claims time of the crime. warning Haggard ap- off” his to “back as this evidence. nothing to contradict offered running pur- pellant came across the lawn Haggard apparently suing his wife. under- lay and witness psychologist Both a direction, changed stood the and pointed away testimony which provided es going departing. to his car and insanity defense and to Haggard’s from capacity to intend adequate ward Haggard jury for the described the strongest evidence before the crime. Haggard paid to the home that eve- visit concerning Haggard’s condition jury the ning. He visited with the children and the Digby-Berry, psy a from Dr. Ceola came parents joined putting in them to two bed. Haggard immedi chologist visited whom suggested Tim a discussion of various is- Dr. committing the offense. ately before upstairs sues. He wanted the discussion acting in Berry was testified away from the children’s bedroom manner, might amount infantile “what floor, using Terri insisted on the main Berry said that temper tantrum.” to a kitchen, downstairs. Terri testified that office, her she conclud Haggard left when “the conversation was calm. There was no danger to himself or ed that he was not argument. Nobody raised voice.” for her conclusion others. The reasons girl- Tim’s She said talked about new appeal. in position this support the State’s friend, possible Indianapolis, to her move going to Haggard told the doctor he was property pend- in their and the division of Berry there parents’ home. Dr. knew his ing only It after he checked divorce. restraining prohibiting Hag order and found them the children’s bedroom gard going his former residence. to began on his asleep that he his attack wife. existence of Berry Dr. testified that the Haggard’s delay This indicates desire not Haggard’s declaration that this order he at- to have the children awake when led her to con he was headed elsewhere Terri and furthers the inference tacked danger not a to his wife. clude that was capacity to commit that he had the mental Haggard’s mental The inference is that crime. the such that he could under condition was length questioned Terri at about Counsel comply to stand the law and be relied mental condition. She indicated she Tim’s thought about with it. Asked what she you feel at that found him normal. “Did Haggard’s sanity, Berry my said: “It is psychiatric some time that he needed I drug affected and that he was “No, thought that.” help?” never that he was in would hesitate to indicate lay to consider jury is entitled sane.” (1984), sanity. Gentry v. State evidence of only This was not the medical Indeed, Ind., jury 263. the 471 N.E.2d suggesting was not all, obligated experts at to believe forming capable of insane but rather was for this for as Justice Pivamik wrote requisite The first wit- criminal intent. may accept reject or Court: “[T]he Hathaway, a ness on the scene was Jeff witnesses, including any statement of living room win- neighbor, who broke witnesses, may rely lay expert testi He gain to access and assist Terri. dow evidence in the case to mony and other Haggard’s demeanor and control described (1982), sanity.” Mayes determine v. State calm. When he as follows: “He seemed Ind., 440 steady He spoke spoke me he in a voice. plays a lay testimony in this case He wasn’t did not seem emotional. appeal. important role on my eyes particularly he met rage. And remember witnesses, Dr. Only of the four medical up and advanced toward one when he stood Yarling, Haggard could expected “I testified that Hathaway continued: John me.” wrongfulness of his very appreciate neither angry, hysterical, him to adamated support sanity in fact his to the nor conform behavior conduct that his attack was un- medical conclusion law. of a provoked and was not the act sane but Dr. Frank Krause testified upset individual. wrongfulness of appreciate the could not opinion of this writer that the Sharp testified that he It is the his act. Dr. William only leads Haggard’s entire evidence this case have an about did not *3 appellant proceeded in the conclusion that day of the on offense. wholly illogical fully sup- manner which opinion not have an Aldo Buonanno also did expert testimony that he day. ports There was legal sanity of his on that to form the intent to commit the testimony about various de- unable substantial not the attack. grees paranoia, paranoia insanity.
legal definition of the conviction. would reverse heard the evidence both DICKSON, J., sides and concluded concurs. rejected ill. It idea guilty by reason of insani-
that he was not concepts in Ind.
ty. The two are defined (insanity) 35-41-3-6 and Ind.Code
Code § ill). (mentally This Court has
§
specifically rejected the notion that these vague susceptible to misin-
terms are ordinary terpretation by persons of intelli- YOUNG, Ralph Appellant, (1982), Ind., 440 gence. Taylor v. State 1109, 1111. Indiana, Appellee. STATE of in- testimony pointing toward While substantial, there sanity was was evidence No. 49S00-8805-CR-511. impairment. degree of a lesser of mental Supreme Court of Indiana. jury obviously believed thinking did suffered from disturbed which insanity. not rise to the level of There was could have which
reached conclusion.
The trial court is affirmed. PIYARNIK, JJ.,
DeBRULER
GIVAN, Justice, dissenting. respectfully majority dissent from the
opinion Although majority in this case.
correctly points out that some witnesses testify opinion appellant
did their attack, sane at the time of his their
narrative belies that conclusion
and in fact the conclusion of the
doctors who testified that ability
he did not have the to form intent. that, in their
The witnesses who testified
opinion, appellant was sane at the time of attack, based their on how calm any provocation
he was and the absence
for the attack. does not Such demeanor