finding sufficient evidence for jury to conclude defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt where jury presented with three experts who opined defendant not criminally responsible, but lay witnesses testified that defendant “appeared normal” around time crime committed
How later courts described this case
- finding sufficient evidence for jury to conclude defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt where jury presented with three experts who opined defendant not criminally responsible, but lay witnesses testified that defendant “appeared normal” around time crime committed
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MILLER, Justice,
dissenting:
In this case, there were three defense experts — two psychologists and a psychiatrist, Patricia Williams, M.D. Each of the .experts was unequivocal as to the defendant’s lack of criminal responsibility. I recognize that Lilian Thambidurai, M.D., found no signs of paranoid schizophrenia. However, she never conducted any type of mental examination on the defendant nor did she give an opinion as to his sanity. Much the same problem exists in Dr. Rivera’s testimony, coupled with the fact that he is only a general practitioner. I conclude that the State did not prove the defendant’s sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.