*1 STATE Tennessee
v.
Christopher M. FLAKE. Tennessee,
Supreme Court of
at Jackson.
Aug. 2002.
Opinion Denying Rehearing
Oct. *2 appealed, asserting, among oth-
er things, defense was established clear and convincing evi- *3 jury dence and that the in had erred re- jecting it. The Court of Criminal Appeals agreed, guilty modified the verdict to not by insanity, reason of and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceed- in ings accordance with Ann. Tenn.Code Thereafter, § granted 33-7-303. we the application permission State’s for to ap- peal to determine whether the burden proof on the insanity issue of affects the Summers, Paul Attorney G. jury’s General and standard of review of re- Moore, Reporter; E. jection Michael Solicitor insanity of the ex- defense. After General; Kim Helper, R. Attor- Assistant haustively reviewing the record and the General; Gibbons, ney William L. District authorities, applicable unanimously we Attorney General, D. Thomas Henderson hold that an appellate court should reverse and John Campbell, W. Assistant District jury rejecting insanity verdict the de- General, Attorneys for appellant, the State if, fense in viewing after the evidence of Tennessee. State, the most favorable to the the appellate court concludes that no reason- Nashville, Tennessee; Raybin,
David L. able trier of fact could have failed to find Ballin, Tennessee, Leslie Memphis, I. that the defendant’s at the time of Farese, Ashland, Steven E. for Mississippi, committing the offense was established appellee, the Christopher M. Flake.
clear convincing Applying evidence. case, this standard in to the record this OPINION majority of opinion this Court is DROWOTA, III, C.J., FRANK F. jury rejecting did in not err court, opinion delivered the in which insanity Accordingly, judg- defense. JANICE M. HOLDER and WILLIAM M. ment of the of Criminal Court BARKER, JJ., joined. judgment reversed and the of the trial The defendant with at- court is reinstated. charged tempted degree first for shooting murder victim, counselor, a pastoral at a Facts trial, church in Memphis, Tennessee. At stated, surrounding As the facts surrounding shooting
the facts However, disputed. are guilt In- were not contested. appeal jury issue in this is whether the stead, sought the defense to establish erroneously rejected defense. insanity. affirmative defense of See Tenn. may determining in a de- jury Because a §Ann. Code 39-11-501. The found sanity fendant’s consider the facts sur- guilty attempted volun- the testimo- verdict, rounding the crime as well as tary manslaughter, witnesses, ny lay rejected implicitly defense. in judgment The trial court entered a in ac- offered at trial is summarized detail verdict, jury’s cordance with the and the hereafter. minutes, in fifteen 19, 1997, defendant, with the defendant twen- meet
On March disapprov- Flake, his head applied the defendant shook Christopher ty-five-year-old minutes pistol the office. Several Jennings .25 automatic al but exited purchase open Tennes- Memphis, later, hearing and Ammo a door upon at Guns form, office, completed providing Carpenter He outside his waiting see. area that indicated background information and saw exited his office alcohol and drugs or was not addicted nodding After waiting area. hospitalized or treated had never been walked defendant, turned and Carpenter pro- application illness. The office, to con- intending back toward *4 cessed; received the Sheriffs the retañer The de- with Hoffman. meeting clude his for the defendant Department clearance the hah- Carpenter down fendant followed 4, 1997, April and on purchase gun; however, name yelling Carpenter’s way, weapon. At picked up the the defendant gun. Obviously a bewü- brandishing and time, a sec- completed behavior, Car- by the defendant’s dered form, indicating response in again ond asked, The you kidding?” “Are penter not used questions that he had specific was not kid- responded he deféndant insti- committed to a mental drugs or been The buñet Carpenter. and shot ding tution. hand, Carpenter’s outstretched struck fin- ring and his index traveled between victim, Carpenter,
The Turner was arm, liv- diaphragm, and through his gers, Church in pastoral counselor Central back, er, where it re- lodged in his and in- Carpenter was Memphis, Tennessee. the time of trial. mained at to the defendant about six weeks troduced shooting by pastor to the the senior prior shot, Carpenter fell he was When time, Carpen- At that of Central Church. floor, so, Hoff- doing in turned toward and an ter told that the defendant was was readüy man, on a sofa not who was seated alcoholic, years of sobri- despite who three in position apparent from “get any ety, peace.” was unable to began Hoffman doorway. When three individual coun- defendant scheduled scream, her turned toward seling Carpenter, sessions with but head for some gun to her and held defendant, working and was en- who was did not shoot The defendant moments. justice at the program roñed a criminal fled, Hoffman, after the defendant University Memphis, cancelled on each assistance, summoned quickly Hoffman scheduling conflicts. occasion because of shooting. survived the Carpenter cancellation, Carpenter rec- After the third participate that the defendant ommended trial, characterized Carpenter At group sessions at Central supervised wafi, weird, and “totally off the shooting as coñege until his and work schedule Church that there Carpenter stated crazy.” agreed. improved. The defendant defendant, him ül no wül between a rational provide could not Carpenter next saw the defendant Carpenter behavior. for the defendant’s explanation evening, Sunday on approximately p.m., that the defen- further testified Carpenter meeting Carpenter April in a soft spoke normal and appeared dant Hoffman, Patricia Ann parishioner, with a at the church first arrived voice when he the defen- office at the church when his however, shooting, office. Just before head in” the door dant “stuck his described the Carpenter Carpenter. with if he could meet inquired “crazed,” like “the devü looking,” “horrible that he would Carpenter responded When himself,” yelling the mony victim’s name profession- several mental health als, “abnormal” voice. including, Lynne Zager, Hilary Dr. Dr. Linder, Smith, psychiatric Rebecca social Shortly shooting, after the Rob- Officer worker, Rokeya Farooque, Dr. Sam Lampley ert Brandon was directed to the Craddock, and Dr. John Hutson. defendant’s residence in Germantown await the defendant’s arrival. Officer Dr. Lynne Zager psycholo- is a clinical Lampley parked so could observe the gist and Director of the Forensic Services driveway. thirty About to for- Program at Mental Midtown Health Cen- later, ty-five minutes pulled vehicle into ter, private not-for-profit mental health driveway, and the defendant exited Dr. Zager center. evaluated the defen- this vehicle. Lampley Officer and another pursuant dant to a court order Octo- officer walked up driveway guns with 28, 1998, ber 1997 to January to deter- drawn, and yelled, “Christopher.” The de- mine competency to stand trial and his man, fendant stopped, and who Officer mental state at the time of the shooting. Lampley later learned was the defendant’s Zager was certified aas forensic evalu- father, walked out of the house and in- *5 ator 1983 and had conducted such evalu- cooperate. structed the defendant Af- time, testifying ations since that often as search, conducting ter a pat-down the offi- witness, an expert including prior hear- cers handcuffed placed the defendant and ing compe- to determine the defendant’s him in patrol car. Lampley Officer tency to stand trial where she testified for said the defendant showed no emotion prosecution. conducting In the compe- when he was arrested. evaluations, tency Zager personally Dr. in- A Johnny short time later Detective terviewed the defendant and reviewed the verbally Brown advised the defendant of psychological results of previously tests his Miranda rights and asked the defen- Zager opined administered. Dr. that on if why dant he knew the officers were 6, 1997, April the defendant suffered from responded, “yes.” there. The defendant paranoid schizophrenia, a severe mental When Detective Brown told the defendant opined disease or defect. She also weapon, he needed the the defendant ad- appreciate defendant had been unable to vised that it was located in the vehicle’s wrongfulness shooting of his conduct in glove compartment. Detective Brown Carpenter. forming opin- Turner In these read a form to consent to search the defen- ions, Zager part upon Dr. relied in Dr. dant, form, and the defendant executed the records,2 Janet Johnson’s medical which was witnessed two De- officers. that Dr. indicated Johnson saw the defen- opened glove tective Brown then com- during prior dant twice the week partment and the pistol. seized Detective appointment shooting, regular once Brown said the defendant looked “tired” 1,1997 3,1997, April again April on on time, distraught,” “kind of at this but days three prior shooting, at the behaving normally. he was otherwise request of the defendant’s father “because
In support of the affirmative of of [the defendant’s] defense bizarre behavior.” insanity,1 example the defendant offered the testi- One defendant’s bizarre incompetent competent February 1. The defendant was found to be to stand trial 1999, 15, began trial and his November 1999. stand trial on several occasions. After receiv- treatment, ing including anti-psychotic medi- Dr. deceased at the Johnson was time cation, finally was determined trial. trial, with the to stand incompetent dared in Dr. rec- described Johnson’s behavior defendant, attain com- assisting goal an incident where ords end, Dr. on trial. To this working man outside to stand seeing petency upon farm, Prozac medi- and counsel- prescription his medication placed prescribed Linder he mailbox because in the man’s as an cation Dr. Linder testified ing sessions. help.” in need of that the man was “felt prosecution on behalf of the expert witness Zager, to Dr. According determine the de- prior proceedings in a apparent were not problems mental trial, competency to stand but fendant’s involving forms interview structured suffers at trial that the defendant opined information. about basic questions and has suf- schizophrenia paranoid Zager ex- apparent, Dr. problems became mental illness since from this severe fered asked the defendant was plained, when addition, Lin- Dr. early years. teen him to questions which allowed open-ended that, the de- April on opined der and false share his bizarre beliefs. wrongful- fendant could cross-examination, Zager admit- On the victim. of his actions ness the victim ted that the defendant described experience thirty-three years Based on suspected “huggie, touchy” opined Dr. Linder practicing psychiatry, also Zager victim homosexual.3 Dr. malingering the defendant was not the defendant’s score acknowledged illness. Personality on the Minnesota Multi-Phasic cross-examination, Linder con- On (“MMPI-II”) Edition Inventory-—Second that, years prior men- despite ceded ten malingering. Further- was indicative *6 treatment, had the defendant tal health more, Zager, to Dr. defen- according prior schizophrenic diagnosed not been voices, i.e., hearing mentioned dant first Dr. also acknowl- to arrest. Linder his hallucinations, auditory after experiencing the defen- to his arrest edged prior a Despite he was arrested for this crime. hallucina- reported auditory dant had not year history ten of mental health treat- tions, diagnosis critical to a symptom arrest, preceding his ment never Had the defendant auditory schizophrenia. previously had neither mentioned hallucinations, Dr. Lin- auditory previously diag- reported nor hallucinations been most like- schizophrenic. nosed as that the defendant der conceded diagnosed de- previously had been with with anti- diagnosed been ly would have op- pression, dependency, disorder, mixed chemical non-psychotic personality social disorder, positional which is characterized inability to follow by manifested an illness fol- by resisting authority refusing and to law, considered generally is not disorder, rules, major affective low capable or defect a severe mental disease mood by which is characterized severe Dr. defense. supporting thought psychosis. rather than problems the defen- acknowledged that Linder also history of reflect a medical records dant’s Dr. Testifying next for the defense was alcohol, abuse, including polysubstance Linder, employed Hilary psychiatrist inhalants, LSD, amphet- marijuana, by the of Tennessee since 1994 State drug (“West- Linder did not believe amines. Dr. Institute Mental Health Western in his since ern”). a factor evaluation abuse was treating and began Dr. Linder drugs not have access to the defendant did the defendant in November evaluating Dr. Linder acknowl- incarcerated. had been de- while after the defendant homosexual. that the victim was not 3. The indicated however, edged, signal defendant tested to the Federal Bureau of Investiga- positive amphetamines for upon his arrival tion to come to the church and take care of at Western. Dr. Linder dismissed the re- the terrorists and Mafia members associat- positive sult as a false though even no ed with the church. second test performed to confirm this Dr. Rokeya Farooque, employed by the assumption. Dr. Linder confirmed that attending psy- State of Tennessee as the the defendant’s records indicate three program chiatrist the forensic service years college course work criminal MTMHI, also testified for the defense. that, justice and when he arrived at West- Dr. Farooque evaluated the defendant ern, the defendant said planned 16, 1997, from November 17 to December plead guilty reason to determine his competency to stand trial believed he sixty would be released within and his mental state at the time of the ninety days if he obtained verdict on evaluation, offense. As a result of this Dr. plea. Farooque concluded that Also testifying for the defense was Re- competent was not trial. Dr. stand Smith, psychiatric becca social worker Farooque explained patients who are employed by the State of Tennessee at charges evaluated as a result of criminal Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute closely are watched all MTMHI staff (“MTMHI”). responsible Smith was potential because of the for malingering. researching gathering Farooque Dr. concluded that the defen- medical personal history. The defen- dant not malingering. After the trial dant told Smith that he was drunk for the court found the defendant incompetent twelve, age first time at using he was trial, Farooque stand treated him for per inhalants three times by age week nine or ten months before he was trans- fourteen, and had used weekly LSD twice ferred to Western. As of her evalua- part age eighteen. since The defendant’s men- treatment, Farooque tion and re- tal health records indicated that he had viewed the defendant’s medical records often family lied to about members which indicated that experienced he had drug and alcohol abuse. Smith testified *7 abuse, drug hallucinations associated with
that the defendant had not reported audi- blackouts, major depression, anxiety tory prior hallucinations to his arrest for disorder, an obsessive-compulsive and dis- crime, diagnosed this nor had he been as beginning age order around twelve or thir- schizophrenic. The defendant told Smith psychiatric teen and that he had received originally he met the victim while seeking treatment and hospitalization as result of help for alcohol dependency and became conditions. Dr. Farooque diagnosed these suspicious after the victim related his own paranoid schizophrenic the defendant as history dependency of alcohol and criminal opined incapa- and that the was defendant conduct. Because the victim was involved appreciating wrongfulness ble of of his dependency group a chemical at the church, shooting Carpenter. conduct Turner the defendant believed the victim defendant had been diag- While the was a terrorist with to access chemical arrest, as schizophrenic prior nosed to his weapons. explained The defendant that shoot, Dr. kill, Farooque explained prior him di- “voices” told but not victim, agnoses completely and that in- were consistent with these same “voices” undiagnosed schizophrenia. structed him kill On cross-ex- not to the woman who meeting Farooque with victim. amination Dr. that According conceded defendant, report auditory was intended defendant did not halluci- Dr. unintentional. wrong is perceived that this until after his arrest and nations de- acknowledged that the diagnosis of also was crucial to her Craddock report experiencing also admit- mentioned Farooque Dr. fendant had not schizophrenia. objec- available to to his arrest auditory prior means are hallucinations ted no actually verify many years tively despite in this case and in- symptoms reports, he experiences treatment, mental health auditory hallucinations. cluding diagnosed schizophrenic had not been to his arrest. prior for the defense was Dr. testifying Also Craddock, psychologist a clinical Samuel expert final witness was The defendant’s con- employed by the state MTMHI to Hutson, psychologist a clinical Dr. John evaluations. Dr. Craddock duct forensic family was hired who in court as an witness appeared has in the with the defendant and who met 1976, since and per «once or twice month 1997, two Shelby County April Jail on in a prosecution for the previously testified Dr. Hutson said shooting. after the days to determine the defendant’s prior hearing struck initially to stand trial. Dr. Craddock competency appearance, “male model” “impeccable,” examined the defendant November typical Dr. Hutson described as not a court pursuant December of incarcerated, mentally ill individuals. time, order, during administered Nevertheless, Dr. Hutson said the defen- battery of tests to assess the defendant’s affect, complained of audi- dant had a flat personality, reasoning, judg- intelligence, hallucinations, reluctant and was tory ment, visual, processing skills. While him of instructions speak with because conceding that some of these test scores counsel to remain silent. from defense ex- malingering, indicated Craddock Dr. Hut- freely spoke with The defendant plained that the stores are not conclusive attorney him only after his instructed son may indicate mental ill- also severe Hutson, so, according to Dr. to do but evaluation, Based clinical upon ness. fine” “logic not on the same defendant was opined that Dr. Craddock Dr. Hutson questions. as the interview malingering. diag- was not Dr. Craddock records of the defendant’s reviewed the paranoid nosed the defendant with schizo- treatment, history psychiatric year ten phrenia and said the defendant was suffer- treatment, and talked including in-patient from this severe mental disease or ing treating psy- with some of the defendant’s shooting. time defect Dr. Hutson chologists psychiatrists. opined qualifications” also “with Craddock including several tests also administered that the defendant could not *8 Hutson, According to Dr. the MMPI-II. wrongfulness of his actions. While indicated that the results of this test shooting per- that a defendant understood Dr. “floridly psychotic.” was defendant arrest, in an wrong son is and can result 10,000 Hutson, over who had evaluated that defendant explained Dr. Craddock individuals, as the defendant described justified” the vic- “morally felt individ- three most disturbed [the] “one tim the defendant believed because career,” and my seen in uals I’ve ever eliminating and that victim was terrorist not malin- the defendant was opined that morally benefit soci- such a terrorist would defen- Dr. Hutson stated that the cross-examination, gering. Dr. Craddock ety. On schizophrenia, undiffer- dant suffers from quick to that the defendant admitted very serious entiated-disorganized type, “a inequitably and being he is treated believe Over psychiatric illness.” incapacitating if grudge against others even will hold a career, the course of his Dr. Hutson had tioning by the defendant’s mother about opined twenty-five cases that the whether he had ever heard voices. Dr. patient appreciate could not the wrongful- Hutson also that if conceded the defen- conduct, ness of his or her but he stated dant reported auditory had not hallucina- squarely falls within tions his diagnosis would not have been category patients. that narrow schizophrenia Accord- probably instead would Hutson, ing borderline, antisocial, to Dr. the defendant believed have been or schiz- working government personality he was for the an oid as disorder.4 agent or an enforcer when he shot the rebuttal, prosecution offered victim. McIntosh, three witnesses. Dr. John cross-examination, psychiatrist employed by
On Shelby County Dr. Hutson ad- inmates, psychiatric render care mitted that testi- defendant exhibited a fied that he had conferred with the preoccupation with defen^ homosexuality. The dant for approximately May one hour on very believed the victim was 1997, at Shelby County Jail. At that effeminate and hated the victim for the time, Dr. McIntosh found no evidence to way he touched him. The defendant was suggest that the defendant suffered from overly so homosexuality sensitive to psychosis but concluded instead that the Dr. Hutson thought might “it have had suffering defendant was depression consequences fatal if somebody physically and attention deficit disorder. The defen- touched him.” Dr. ques- Hutson also was dant did report auditory not hallucinations. tioned about activities defendant’s acknowledged McIntosh that his exam- during day prior shooting. designed ination was not to determine the Based on notes apparently during taken competency to stand trial or father, an interview with the defendant’s his mental state at the time the offense Dr. Hutson said the defendant awoke was committed and conceded that mental a.m., mood, good about 9:00 was professionals health who observed the de- breakfast, helped his father cook worked fendant for a thirty-day period were father, on his car with his rode his trail position better to perform comprehen- bike, dog park, walked his in the watched sive evaluation and opinion. render an trial, a movie about a criminal chose a acknowledged McIntosh that he did not television movie to watch that evening prior psychiatric review the defendant’s parents, helped with his cook on dinner agreeing medical records. While with the dinner, grill, outdoor ate and then left experts defense that the defendant has a for a meeting at Central Church about disease,” “serious mental Dr. McIntosh p.m., assuring parents 5:40 that he disagreed diagnosis schizophre- with the would return right meeting after the so opine nia. Dr. McIntosh asked they together could watch the movie whether or not the defendant was able to planned. experts, Like the other defense wrongfulness of his conduct Dr. Hutson admitted in shooting the victim. reported auditory hallucinations for the day first time on the after his arrest and testifying prosecution Also for the *9 Luttrell, acknowledged that Dr. report physician provid- was not Mark who in spontaneous response ques- Shelby County but was to ed medical at the services themselves, According testimony Zager, stay to the of Dr. disorder tend to to have few personality schizoid relationships, disorder is not schizo- social odd manifest or un- phrenia persons personality with schizoid usual behavior. defendant, at doubt that the in or substantial Luttrell treated the defendant Jail. was unable shooting, tract infection urinary for a the time July of distress or his act as apparent wrongfulness no the appreciate and noticed that occasion. schizophrenia on In so signs of disease.” of a severe mental result the defendant as Dr. Luttrell described Appeals holding, the Court Criminal “unremarkable, just everybody ... like stated, not of this record does “our review did not conduct a men- Although else.” testimony, or lay reveal sufficient defendant, Lutt- tal evaluation of the the defendant’s testimony, concerning rell, in residency completed who had the the time of mental state at or near Dr. McIntosh’s di- psychiatry, agreed with rejection of the justify would shooting that that suffered from agnosis Accordingly, the Court insanity defense.” mental disorder. Dr. Luttrell was serious judg- Appeals modified the of Criminal opine whether or not the not asked to insanity by reason of guilty ment to not wrongful- the defendant could court the case to the trial and remanded the victim. ness of his conduct pursuant to Tenn. proceedings for further prosecution’s final rebuttal witness §Ann. 33-7-303. Code Perry, director of mental health was John Thereafter, application the State filed Perry the Shelby County for the Jail. saw the arguing that permission appeal, jail defendant when he first arrived at the had erred both Appeals Court Criminal days per and four or five week thereafter by im- jury’s the verdict and reversing According incarcerated. while he was a burden to offer posing upon the State Perry, the defendant did not “sit and insanity defense when proof to rebut doing during stare” time as he was defense, Tenn. describing the statute during the trial. 39-11-501, impose § Ann. does Code jury proof, At the conclusion of this granted any upon the State. We burden attempted on the was instructed offense wheth- application determine State’s of- degree first murder and the lesser er the burden of on degree mur- attempted fenses of second appellate the standard of defense affects der, attempted voluntary manslaughter, insanity. We jury’s finding of a on review aggravated jury assault. The also was proper conclude that unanimously defense. The instructed on light of the statute standard of review jury finding a verdict the defen- returned prove the defendant to requiring voluntary man- guilty attempted dant convincing evidence is wheth- by clear and slaughter, thereby implicitly rejecting er, the evidence considering The trial court entered a insanity defense. prosecution, no rea- favorable to the most judgment jury’s in accordance with the have failed to trier of fact could sonable verdict, explicitly to set aside refused insanity at the find that juror. The as the thirteenth verdict by was established time of the offense arguing in the Court appealed, This essen- convincing evidence. clear and that he had met his Appeals of Criminal adopted of review tially is the standard insanity defense establishing burden of case; in this of Criminal Court and that convincing clear and follow, a however, for the reasons de- rejecting had erred in concludes majority of this Court court The intermediate fense. not afford Appeals did of Criminal trier of Court concluding that “a rational agreed, jury’s verdict deference appropriate find that there is no serious fact could *10 550 440; applying According- 344,
when this standard.5 Clayton, State v. 656 S.W.2d 346 (Tenn.1983). ly, the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals judgment is reversed and the of The Assembly adopted General the trial court is reinstated. amendment, 1, statutory July effective
1995, substantially which revised in Insanity Defense sanity Currently, insanity defense. defense is as follows: 1995, sustaining Until the standard for (a) Insanity, It anis affirmative defense insanity defense as follows: that, prosecution at the time of the Insanity. (a) Insanity is a defense to — of constituting commission the acts if, prosecution of the time such con- offense, defendant, as a result of a duct, as a result of mental or disease defect, severe mental disease or was un- defect, person lacked substantial ca- appreciate wrong- able to the nature or pacity appreciate wrongful- either to fulness of such defendant’s acts. Mental person’s ness of the conduct or to con- defect disease or does not otherwise con- form requirements that conduct to the stitute a defense. The defendant has the law. proving the burden of the defense of (b) section, As used in this “mental dis- insanity convincing clear and evi- any ease or defect” does not include dence.
abnormality only by manifested re- (b) section, As used “mental dis- peated criminal or otherwise antisocial or any ease defect” does not include conduct. abnormality only by manifested re- peated criminal or otherwise antisocial § 39-ll-501(repealed Tenn.Code Ann. conduct. 1995); State, see also 547 Graham v. (c) (Tenn.1977). may testify No witness as to
S.W.2d 531
Under this stan-
whether the
was or
dard,
sane,
presumed
a defendant was
but
(a).
set
insane as
forth
subsection
if the
during
evidence introduced
ultimate issue is a matter for the
Such
course of the trial raised a reasonable
trier of fact alone.
sanity,
doubt as to the defendant’s
proving
(1997
State then had the burden of
§
Repl.).
Tenn.Code Ann.
39-11-501
sanity beyond
defendant’s
a reasonable
Passage of this
resulted
three
statute
Graham,
544;
doubt.
547
see
S.W.2d
principal changes
to the
defense.6
607,
Sparks,
State v.
First,
also
891 S.W.2d
616
definition
has been
(Tenn.1995);
Jackson,
State v.
890 S.W.2d
applies
narrowed so that the defense now
436,
(Tenn.1994);
State,
440
Edwards v.
men-
when the defendant has
severe
(Tenn.1976).
Sanity
540
or
in the
S.W.2d
646
tal disease
defect
results
Sparks,
being
became an element
the crime.
“unable to
616; Jackson,
wrongfulness
551 longer appropri- no Second, affir- reasonable doubt8 —is insanity is an acts.”7 dant’s ad- long- previously has not prosecution The no ate. This Court mative defense. sanity beyond or its proving insanity burden of defense er has the dressed the current Instead, defen- doubt. a reasonable review. appellate effect on standard establishing the the burden of dant bears Court, upon relies the State In this convincing evidence. by clear and defense Barton, 66, F.2d 68- 992 v. United States convincing evidence means evi- “Clear (5th Cir.1993), ap- that an argues 69 or sub- there is no serious dence which view the evidence pellate court should the correctness of stantial doubt about prosecution favorable to the most the evidence.” conclusions drawn from rejecting an jury a verdict and reverse Holder, Hodges 911(quoting 15 S.W.3d if no tri- “only defense reasonable insanity Co., 896, 2 901 n. v. S.C. & 833 S.W.2d Toof have failed to find er of fact could (Tenn.1992)). Third, current under time of insanity criminal statute, ex- prosecution and defense both by clear and established the offense was offering opinion perts prohibited are According to the Id. convincing evidence.” testimony as to whether or not the defen- on State, permits reversal such standard dant was sane at the time the offense rejection of jury’s appeal when See, e.g., Perry, v. committed. State contrary is to the insanity defense 724, (Tenn.Crim.App.), 739-42 S.W.3d The State as a matter of law. evidence (Tenn.1999); see also perm, app denied says that the Court Criminal Advisory Commission Comments to Tenn. essentially adopted this standard but erred insanity (explaining R. Evid. 704 substituting judgment it its applying scope of one ultimate issue outside the jury by imposing for that of the expert testimony). The ultimate issue of mandated “a for the on the State not sanity proof is matter burden of § sup- Ann. 3- contemplated by trier of fact alone.” Tenn.Code the statute. or ll-501(c) (1997 assertion, Repl.). the State port of this second in the following sentence points to
Admittedly,
the 1995 statute does not
Appeals:
of Criminal
decision of the Court
appellate
its
alter the standard of
terms
Dr. John
testimony of state witnesses
“The
jury’s finding
review of a
on the
McIntosh,
Luttrell, and John
Dr. Mark
Nevertheless,
the defense has
defense.
jury.”
for the
Perry did not create an issue
statute,
fundamentally
by been
altered
that the Court of
responds
The defendant
and the standard of review must be re-
properly
Appeals adopted
Criminal
modifications.
vised to account for these
of review.
governing
standard
applied
longer
no
an element of the
Sanity is
defense,
to the
the sentence
According
sufficiency of the evidence
offense. The
objects indicates that the
the State
by appellate
previously applied
standard
properly
court
con-
intermediate
jury finding
sanity—
on
reviewing
courts
had of-
prosecution
sidered whether
whether,
the evidence
viewing
after
to counter the
state,
any ra-
fered substantial
favorable to the
light most
and create
defense
fact
have found the
tional trier of
could
on the issue.
beyond
question
elements of the offense
essential
Virginia, 443 U.S.
v.
the voli- 8. See Jackson
1995 amendment eliminated
i.e.,
Jackson,
(1979);
prong of the
defense
Our defense to determine “whether jurisdictions any courts in apply other a defer there was substantial evidence to sup reviewing jury’s port ential standard when a the verdict.”13 The Indiana Supreme defense, rejection insanity of the Court has that a ap but stated defendant whose insanity at courts do use defense fails trial “has a monu pellate language not uniform mental burden if he seeks to upset when describing applicable standard. finding appeal, of the fact trier on for he is adopted by “reasonableness” standard appealing from a negative finding, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Bar issue is not or the finding whether not adopted by ton has been some state courts sustained the evidence but rather State, considering issue. See Fuss v. contrary whether it was all the 319, 446, 271 Ga. 519 S.E.2d 448 contrary (1999)(“whether hence law.” Turner v. reviewing after the evi State, (Ind.1981) 1244, 428 N.E.2d 1246 light dence in the most favorable to the (emphasis original). appellate Indiana state, a rational trier of fact could have courts, therefore, a fact reverse finder’s prove found the defendant failed to rejection insanity “only of the defense preponderance of the evidence that he is without when the evidence conflict and crime.”); insane the time of the leads to but one conclusion which the trier Silman, (La. 27, State v. 663 So.2d 32 fact not did reach.”14 1995); Prince, 643, v. State 688 So.2d 649 (“whether, (La.Ct.App.1997) viewing the uniformity This lack of on the proper evidence in the most to the favorable standard of review is also re appellate state, any juror rational could have found decisions, flected in court appellate federal had proven by relevant to particularly we view as preponderance of the evidence that he was since, noted, appeal the issue offense.”). insane at the time of the Other upon federal statute is the model appellate preclude disturbing state courts which our current statute is based. Some sanity the fact-finder’s resolution of the apply “clearly federal circuit erro courts contrary review, issue “unless the verdict is to the reversing neous” standard of evidence,”9 weight jury’s manifest or “the if finding on the issue overwhelming”10 clearly is or it is erroneous. States See United (8th Hiebert, 1005, “contrary great prepon verdict is v. 30 F.3d 1007 Cir. evidence,”11 1994); Reed, “judg derance of the or the v. 997 F.2d United States 332, (7th Cir.1993); against great weight ment is so 334 States v. United (11th Freeman, 1574, evidence so Cir. preponderance as to be 804 F.2d 1577 1986). courts, manifestly unjust.”12 appellate including Arkansas Other federal Circuit, rejecting courts verdict the Fifth the “reasonableness” apply review State, Johnson, 109, 1997); People Morgan v. 146 Ill. v. 869 S.W.2d 9. Ill.2d 165 Christi 78, 682, 388, 1993); (1991). (Tex.App. Tyler 86 see Dec. 585 N.E.2d 389 12th Dist. 18, People Sangalang, 2001 also v. 2001 Guam 950161, (Guam 2001). State, 623, WL (Ala. *8 v. 624 10. Christian 351 So.2d 1977). 388, State, Haynes 13. v. 346 Ark. 58 S.W.3d 336, State, 859, (2001); Alabama, (Ala. Phillips 341 v. 314 Ark. 11. 434 So.2d 862 Alvis v. 531, 309, (1993). 1983). 863 S.W.2d 311 Crim.App. State, 668, (Ind. State, (Tex.Crim.App.1990); 673 14. Gambill v. 675 N.E.2d v. S.W.2d 155 785 Meraz State, State, 1996); see also Hurst v. 699 N.E.2d 941 S.W.2d onv. ks Jac 351, (Tex. (Ind.1998). Corpus Ct.App., Dist. 654 n. 3 352 13th
553 required government v. Vir that the derived from Jackson standard, assertion Barton, sufficiency proof by offer- ginia, standard. to counter Martin, v. 69; United States contrary expert F.2d or ing rebuttal evidence (C.A.A.F.2001). 97, 106 This “reason Barton, M.J. at 70. The 992 F.2d testimony. requires ableness” standard prosecu- pointed out *13 court further light in most to view the evidence court of proof defense tion can counter and reverse a prosecution to the favorable lay testimony of wit- by presenting insanity defense rejecting the jury verdict undermining the defense by nesses if trier of fact could “only no reasonable credibility through cross-examina- expert’s to find that have failed Id. tion. insanity at the time of the offense criminal for of States Court United by convincing clear and was established Martin, Barton, 69; recently adopted 992 F.2d at the Armed Forces evidence.” and, at 107. Like the various other compre- 56 M.J. in a approach Fifth Circuit in and federal applied standards both state thorough opinion, explained hensive and courts, is def the reasonableness standard its decision: underlying the rationale nature, in the Fifth Circuit erential is consis- a of reasonableness Such test as follows: aptly explained that de- congressional intent tent with It is not sufficient here that Barton’s are responsibility mental terminations of us, might appear were we alone, and the trier of fact to make fact, the finder of to be clear and con- offering opinions. ultimate experts do vincing. We are not fact finders and that the trier of fact is recognizes It also the testimo- credibility not assess the of appellate than are positioned better ny weight or the of the evidence. These the evi- appraise weigh courts to jury’s This def- responsibilities.
are
appropriate
burden
apply
dence and
particularly appropriate
erence is
where
proof
party
bears
hav-
of
jury
against
party
has found
true
ing
proof by
may
particularly
the burden of
clear
This
be
burden.
convincing
As the D.C. Cir-
evidence.
defense,
pre-
such as that
of an
said,
cuit
“when
raised as a
case,
there are
in this
where
sented
crime,
acquittal
judgment
defense to
of
experts, complex
multiple competitive
thereof,
emphasized,
by reason
we have
facts,
testifying
witnesses
and numerous
only
exceptional
in
granted
should be
of
at the time
to the accused’s demeanor
in
complicated
cases. And
view of the
the offense.
to be made—
nature of
decision
ap-
A
standard is also
reasonableness
moral,
intertwining
legal, and medical
courts have
appellate
because
propriate
unusually
judgments
require
will
an
—it
conclusion,
in an
implicit
jury’s
us to reverse a
strong showing
induce
guilt, against which
finding
ultimate
judge
left
conviction because
contrast,
error.
In
where
to test for
responsibility
of criminal
critical issue
fact on
finding
makes a
judge
it clear in this
trial
jury.
with the
We think
appellate
court
responsibility,
it
it
judge
that the trial
left where
case
against
judge’s
belonged.”
for clear
tests
error —
fact,
in the
findings of
included
specific
Barton,
v.
Gaskins
(quoting
logical records of the til receiving permission attorney. from his arrest, prior McIntosh, health treatment to his he Dr. Dr. Luttrell and John Per- history polysubstance had abuse ry said the defendant normally behaved had often lied parents to his about the although appear while incarcerated he did drugs extent to which he abused and alco- depressed. Although experts hol. testified that reviewing After the evidence history the defendant’s of substance abuse State, in the favorable to light most impact had no on their evaluations since majority of this Court is unable to con had been incarcerated and had no access clude that no reasonable trier of fact could drugs, Dr. Linder admitted that have failed to find that tested positive amphet- criminal at the time of the offense Western, amines when he arrived at even convincing was established clear and
though
prescription
he had no
for amphet-
contested,
evidence.
the proof
Where
amines. Dr. Linder assumed the result
rarely
courts should
reverse
positive
false
but admitted that he
jury’s rejection of
defense un
assumption.
did not re-test to confirm this
der this deferential standard of review.
Finally,
notwithstanding expert proof
noted
Fifth
As
Circuit Court of
contrary,
surrounding
the facts
Appeals, appellate courts are not fact find
suggest
offense
the defendant realized his
ers,
appropriate
is not
where
reversal
conduct
wrongful.
excep-
With the
might appear
the evidence
to us clear and
Craddock,
tion of Dr.
the mental health
fact
convincing
Appel
were we
finders.
professionals
testified
reweigh
late courts do not
the evidence or
wrongful-
was unable to
credibility
reassess
determinations. These
*16
shooting
ness of his conduct in
the victim.
jury.
of the
province
tasks are within the
that
opined
Craddock
the defendant
proof
While the
in this record indicates
shooting
was aware that
was
someone
that
from a mental
the defendant suffers
wrongful,
justified
morally
but he felt
in
disorder,
a
does not mandate
such
shooting the victim whom he believed to
a
is
jury finding
legally
that
defendant
show, however,
be a terrorist. The facts
State,
17
insane.
Coe v.
S.W.3d
Cf.
that the defendant
pa-
did not shoot the
(Tenn.2000) (“[T]he
existence of a
rishioner with whom the victim
meet-
was
automatically
mental disorder does not
scene,
ing, and he fled the
rather
than
finding
incompetency
translate into a
to
waiting for the arrival of the FBI. At the
(“In
Reed,
executed.”);
be
defendant had a of mental a clinical ger, psychologist and Director of illness, including depression, mixed chemi- Program the Forensic Services at Midtown disorder, and dependency, oppositional cal Mental Health Center. She examined him disorder, major affective for which he had period a four-month from over October hospitalized. been The evidence showed January 1997 to 1998 to determine his that his mental had de- substantially state to stand trial and his mental competency during immediately teriorated the week Zager Dr. state the time of offense. fact, preceding shooting. the de- suffered from testified apparent fendant’s bizarre behavior was so paranoid the severe mental illness of scheduled an addi- his worried father schizophrenia and that due to the mental appointment tional with the defendant’s illness, wrong- appreciate he could not Johnson, treating psychiatrist, Dr. Janet during fulness of his conduct 8, 1997, April only days on two after his 6, April Zager part on 1997. Dr. relied previous session. Dr. Johnson’s notes treating on the of the defendant’s *18 period years for a of over two after the associated experienced prior hallucinations him offense. The trial court declared com- blackouts, abuse, major depres- drug with only disorder, trial the petent sion, to stand after State an anxiety and obsessive- had extensive treatment noted compulsive Farooque furnished Dr. disorder. anti-psychotic psychiat- medication over the more the defendant had received that treatment, for including hospitalization, years following than two the offense. ric questioned Dr. was deceased at the time “distraught” or “tired” when 2. Johnson gun. about the whereabouts of the The defen- trial. gun a vehicle dant told officers that the was in glove box and he executed a consent to search form. defendant. history from the Farooque testi- obtained prior
his conditions. Smith, to the defendant believed para- According from that the defendant suffered fied counselor, Carpenter, pastoral that the schizophrenia incapable and was noid with access to chemical wrongfulness of his con- was a terrorist appreciating the told the defen- committing weapons, and that voices duct offense. signal the victim as a dant to shoot State-employed mental health The last to take care F.B.I. to come to the church testifying for the defense was professional and mafia associated with of the terrorists Craddock, psychologist Dr. Sam a clinical the church. at Middle Tennessee Mental Health Insti- summarize, tute, of the mental health who stated that he evaluated the To all professionals completed De- who numerous defendant from November 1997 to evaluations of the de- agreed comprehensive He that the de- cember consistently determined paranoid schizophrenia, fendant had which fendant illness, illness, par- from a severe mental is a serious mental suffered and that he was un- appreciate wrong- schizophrenia, could not anoid wrongfulness of his committing appreciate fulness of his actions in able to All offense. Dr. added that the de- conduct in the victim. Craddock justified” years experi- had “morally professionals fendant felt to shoot the these apparently conducting competency victim because he believed the ence in experts victim Three of these terrorist. state evaluations. by the of Tennessee employed were State The final mental health professional provide testimony no motive to and had testify Hut- defense was Dr. John defense; indeed, favorable to the three of son, psychologist a clinical employed had testified these witnesses same defense, who stated that he had evalu- regard on behalf of the State with defendant, lengthy ated the reviewed his competent whether the defendant history treatment, of mental illness and contrast, proceeding. stand trial in this tests, including administered several expert testimony no presented the State MMPI-II, psy- revealed he was that the defendant did not have a showing Hutson, According chotic. to Dr. the de- appreciate mental illness or that he could working fendant believed he was for the his conduct. wrongfulness government agent as an or enforcer when accurately Although majority he shot victim. Hutson deter- has record, mined that the defendant suffered from summarized the evidence schizophrenia, undifferentiated-disorga- upholds jury it verdict on nonetheless serious, all type, jury weigh nized which he inca- the basis that the is to called jury pacitating mental He facts and circumstances and that the illness. testified accept expert testimony. not required the defendant was one of the three “most responsibil- I agree disturbed individuals” he had ever seen has those 10,000 ities, among persons yet disagree majority’s the over' I with the he had career, case for several reasons. evaluated and one of 25 conclusions patients whom Dr. Hutson concluded could First, majority argues that the de- wrongfulness of his or *19 on a gun fendant fabricated an answer her conduct. application made before the offense Smith, “normally” day of the offense psychiatric so- acted on the
Finally, Rebecca shooting. These normal ac- prior cial worker at Mental Health In- to the Western tions, however, stitute, characteristic of that interviewed and are as testified she schizophrenia experts as abnormal actions. Sec- This is not case which of- ond, majority speculates jury the that the opinions regarding fered different the de- may have believed that the defendant’s mental All unani- fendant’s state. were shooting motive for the victim was not mous and testified without contradiction the victim ter- thought because he was a that the defendant suffered from a severe someway rorist but was in to the related illness, mental and that he schizophrenia, fantasy defendant’s that the victim was a wrongfulness of appreciate could not the homosexual. by The evidence noted the his Nor is this a ease in conduct. majority directly not did relate to the de- lay testimony regarding there was the mental at time fendant’s state the that facts and circumstances of the offense offense, in the testimony contrast of In expert testimony. differed from the eye-witnesses two to the offense and the short, I find no in this record for can basis testimony experts of five mental health jury reasonably rejected the the have regarding the defendant’s mental state lay regarding or the de- evidence Moreover, the time of the offense. the mental at the time of the fendant’s state upon by majority inferences relied did that Although fully offense. I am aware not refute the of jury’s reversal of a verdict under the stan- incapacity to serious mental illness and his rare, am adopted dard we have will be I wrongfulness of his actions by upholding jury’s that concerned fact, of In the time the offense. verdict under the facts and circumstances expert witnesses testified without contra- case, majority appel- of this has made persons suffering diction that schizo- jury’s meaningless of a late review verdict phrenia appear do not act or “cra- bizarre and useless. zy” normally all the time and often behave majority’s Accordingly, I concur periods of time. rejecting that a verdict holding majority argues Finally, be reversed if defense should State’s cross-examination of the defense court, viewing the evidence experts attempted establish prosecution, most favorable to the malingering defendant was and had never that no trier of fact concludes reasonable complained auditory hallucinations until could have failed to find defen- All after this offense was committed. insanity at the time of the offense dant’s experts uniformly health convincing by was established clear and however, responded, without contradiction however, disagree, evidence. I with the malingering or that the defendant was majority’s application of the standard to symptoms of his mental ill- feigning the case. facts and circumstances of this Moreover, two of the State’s own ness. view, my Court Criminal McIntosh rebuttal witnesses —Dr. John that no reasonable correctly determined the malin- and Mark Luttrell —refuted of fact could have failed to find trier theory by agreeing that the defen- gering at the time of the from a serious mental dis- dant suffered clear and con- offense was established Significantly, ease. the State’s rebuttal vincing I therefore dissent. evidence. the State the witnesses not asked were question core relevant to the defense i.e., I am authorized to state that Justice
insanity, whether the defendant could concurring joins BIRCH wrongfulness or appreciate the nature dissenting opinion. conduct in the victim.
561 is without mer- suppress motion to ing his PETITION DENYING OPINION it. REHEARING FOR Flake, by Christopher M. appellee, Justice Birch con- Anderson and Justice counsel, through petition has filed a in expressed to the views tinue adhere Au- of this Court filed opinion
rehear the opinion but concur dissenting their initial 29, rehearing for gust grounds 2002. As petition rehearing. for in the denial of Opinion did petition asserts is petition to rehear Accordingly, in Flake’s not address another issue raised DENIED. brief, trial specifically, that the court erred denying suppress Flake’s motion to be- mentally capable
cause Flake was not
knowingly intelligently consenting under waiving rights
search or his Mi Arizona, 436,
randa v. 384 U.S. 86 S.Ct. (1966).
1602, 16L.Ed.2d 694 is appellee
While the correct Raymond MITCHELL 29, 2002, August Opinion did issue, explicitly suppression address the v. grounds rehearing. this assertion is not It is well-settled that “a trial court’s find Donal CAMPBELL. of fact in a
ings suppression hearing will Tennessee, Court of Appeals be upheld preponder unless evidence at Nashville. Odom, ates v. 928 otherwise.” State (Tenn.1996). 18, “Questions S.W.2d 23 19, April witnesses, credibility weight of the evidence, value of the and resolution of Appeal Denied Permission to conflicts the evidence are matters en 7, Court Oct. 2002. Supreme judge trusted to the trial as the trier of Id.; England,
fact.” see also State v. 19 (Tenn.2000). 762, such, 766
S.W.3d As
“the prevailing party the trial court ‘strongest legitimate
afforded the view of and all and legiti reasonable may
mate inferences that be drawn from “ Carter, 16 evidence.’ See State v. (Tenn.2000) (quoting
S.W.3d State (Tenn.1998)). Keith,
v. 978 S.W.2d
Applying principles, these we are opinion that the evidence does not
preponderate against the trial court’s find
ing mentally capa that the defendant was knowingly intelligently
ble of consent
ing waiving rights to a search and of as Accordingly,
under Miranda. Flake’s deny- that the trial court
sertion erred notes 3,1997 visit, April from the which was Johnson, regarding psychiatrist, Dr. Janet days shooting, three before the described the defendant’s bizarre behavior.2 recent incident where defendant saw Linder, testify Hilary Dr. Next to working man his farm and left his on em- practicing years for 33 psychiatrist Prozac in the medication man’s mailbox Mental ployed by the State Western help.” because he he needed “looked.like Health Institute. He evaluated the defen- Finally, the trial evidence revealed that Linder, dant in November of 1998. a total health professionals, Zager, determined that the defen- five like psychiatrists psychologists, per- both paranoid had schizo- dant suffered numerous, evalua- comprehensive formed early years teen phrenia since his of the defendant and all determined tions appreciate wrongfulness could not that he suffered from a severe mental his acts due to his severe mental illness. illness, schizophrenia, and was unable to was Dr. testifying Also for the defense wrongfulness of his conduct Rokeya Farooque, psychiatrist at Middle Indeed, after the shooting the victim. Institute, Health who Tennessee Mental trial, prior to offense and November the defendant from evaluated psychiatrists a number of was examined 16, 1997. Dr. Far- to December and, trial court proof, result of medical ooque reviewed the defendant’s incompetent him to stand trial found to be had which indicated the defendant records