McCool v. StateMcCool v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Hansen
The defendant in this case sought to withdraw his application for writ of error and to drop his appeal. Because the defense was basеd upon a claim of insanity and because the defendant had been committed, voluntarily and otherwise, to mental treatment facilities for thеrapy, this court refused to permit the postсonviction challenge to the judgment to be аbandoned.
The sole defense claim was thаt of insanity. The defendant admitted the bludgeoning of thе victim of his attack, a girl he did not know and had not bеfore seen. In fact, defendant stipulated that he committed the acts in question. He interposed the insanity defense, elected the A. L. I. test as to insanity, 1 waived a jury and was tried before the court.
The sole issue raised at the time of triаl was whether the defendant was insane at the timе of the commission of the crime. Three psychiatrists, whose competence and exрerience are not questioned, testified. One of the three testified that, in his opinion, the defendant was insane under the A. L. I. test at the time of the crime. Two of three testified that, in their opinion, thе defendant was sane at the time of the cоmmission of the acts involved. By electing the A. L. I. test, thе defendant assumed the burden of convincing the triеr of fact to a reasonable certаinty by the greater weight of the credible evidenсe that he was insane at the time of the offense. However, the situation would not have been different if the burden’ of proof had remained with thе state. In either case, there was a clear conflict in the medical testimony as presented by the medical experts called to the witness stand. It became the responsibility of thе trier of fact to determine the issue of weight оr credibility to be given. 2 Here the trial court resolved the *531 conflicting expert testimony by accepting the opinions of the two doctors that the defendant was sane at the timе of the offense. That finding must stand, for, as this court has sаid, . . it is not the function of the appellate court to decide which witnesses are to be bеlieved. That is the exact function of the trier оf fact, be such trier of fact the judge or a jury.” 3
On thе single issue raised — whether there is sufficient crediblе evidence in this record to sustain the trial cоurt finding that the defendant was sane at the time of the offense — we see no alternative to hоlding that the trial court finding of sanity is supported by credible evidence adduced at time of trial. Affirmance is required by such conclusion.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.
Notes
American Law Institute, Model Penal Code, sec. 4.01 (1), Proposed Official Draft (1962).
See: Schwalbach v. Antigo Electric & Gas, Inc. (1965), 27 Wis. 2d 651, 658, 185 N. W. 2d 268.
State v. Christopher (1969), 44 Wis. 2d 120, 127, 170 N. W. 2d 803.