Findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity (“NRI”): In general
Findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity (“NRI”): Initiation of civil commitment hearings
Findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity (“NRI”): Conduct of civil commitment hearings
Findings of guilty but mentally ill (“GBMI”): In general
Findings of guilty but mentally ill (“GBMI”): Sentencing
Findings of guilty but mentally ill (“GBMI”): Other consequences of a GBMI verdict
In general
• The determination of sanity is a question for the trier of fact.
Barany v. State, 658 N.E.2d 60, 63 (Ind. 1995)
Berry v. State, 969 N.E.2d 35, 38 (Ind. 2012)(quoting Gambill v. State, 675 N.E.2d 668, 672 (Ind. 1996), reh’g denied)(“‘A determination of insanity is a question for the trier of fact.’”)
See Garner v. State, 704 N.E.2d 1011, 1014 (Ind. 1998)(citing Gambill v. State, 675 N.E.2d 668, 672 (Ind. 1996), reh’g denied)(“The determination of insanity is a question for the trier of fact, who may elect to credit the testimony of lay witnesses over that of medical experts.”)
Cf. Nagy v. State, 505 N.E.2d 434, 439 (Ind. 1987)(citing Resnover v. State, 434 N.E.2d 78, 81 (Ind. 1982))(“The task of weighing evidence on the issue of insanity belongs solely to the trier of fact.”)
• The jury is free to disregard the unanimous testimony of experts and rely instead on conflicting testimony by lay witnesses.
Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1084-85 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied(citing Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 709 (Ind. 2010), reh’g denied)
• Further, even if there is no conflicting lay testimony, the jury is free to disregard or discredit the expert testimony.
Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied(citing Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 709 (Ind. 2010), reh’g denied)
• In all cases in which the defense of insanity is interposed, the jury (or the court if tried by it) shall find whether the defendant is:
(1) guilty;
(2) not guilty;
(3) not responsible by reason of insanity at the time of the crime; or
(4) guilty but mentally ill at the time of the crime.
Findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity (“NRI”): In general
• A successful insanity defense results in the defendant being found not responsible by reason of insanity.
Kelley v. State, 2 N.E.3d 777, 783 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)(citing Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 708 (Ind. 2010), reh’g denied)
Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied(quoting Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 708 (Ind. 2010), reh’g denied)
Findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity (“NRI”): Initiation of civil commitment hearings
• Whenever a defendant is found not responsible by reason of insanity at the time of the crime, the prosecuting attorney shall file a written petition with the court under IC 12-26-6-2(a)(3) or under IC 12-26-7.
• When an NRI verdict is rendered, the prosecutor is required to initiate a civil commitment proceeding under either section 12-26-6-2(a)(3) (temporary commitment) or section 12-26-7 (regular commitment) of the Indiana Code.
Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 708 n. 9 (Ind. 2010), reh’g denied
Findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity (“NRI”): Burden of proof in civil commitment hearings
• [The defendant] correctly notes that the state’s burden in any such proceedings must be met by clear and convincing evidence.
Deal v. State, 446 N.E.2d 32, 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983), reh’g denied, trans. denied
Findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity (“NRI”): Conduct of civil commitment hearings
• If a petition is filed under IC 12-26-6-2(a)(3), the court shall hold a commitment hearing under IC 12-26-6. If a petition is filed under IC 12-26-7, the court shall hold a commitment hearing under IC 12-26-7.
• The hearing shall be conducted at the earliest opportunity after the finding of not responsible by reason of insanity at the time of the crime, and the defendant shall be detained in custody until the completion of the hearing.
• The defendant remains in custody pending the completion of the commitment proceeding.
Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 708 n. 9 (Ind. 2010), reh’g denied(citing IC 35-36-2-4(b))
• The court may take judicial notice of evidence introduced during the trial of the defendant and may call the physicians appointed by the court to testify concerning whether the defendant is currently mentally ill and dangerous or currently mentally ill and gravely disabled, as those terms are defined by IC 12-7-2-96 and IC 12-7-2-130(1).
• The court may subpoena any other persons with knowledge concerning the issues presented at the hearing.
• The prosecuting attorney may cross-examine the witnesses and present relevant evidence concerning the issues presented at the hearing.
• The trial court may order the defendant committed if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is currently mentally ill and either dangerous or gravely disabled.
Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 708 n. 9 (Ind. 2010), reh’g denied
Findings of no responsibility by reason of insanity (“NRI”): Rights of defendants during civil commitment hearings
• The defendant has all the rights provided by the provisions of IC 12-26 under which the petition against the defendant was filed.
Findings of guilty but mentally ill (“GBMI”): In general
• “[M]ental illness alone is not sufficient to relieve [a defendant of] criminal responsibility.”
Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied(quoting Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 708 (Ind. 2010), reh’g denied)
• Because mental illness alone is not enough to establish the [insanity] defense—the defendant must also show that the illness caused him to be unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct—a defendant who is mentally ill but fails to establish that he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct may be found guilty but mentally ill.
Kelley v. State, 2 N.E.3d 777, 783 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014)(citing Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 708 (Ind. 2010), reh’g denied))
See Fernbach v. State, 954 N.E.2d 1080, 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied(citing Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 708 (Ind. 2010), reh’g denied)(“[A] defendant who is mentally ill but fails to establish that he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct may be found guilty but mentally ill.”)
See also Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28, 29 (Ind. 1998)(citing Gambill v. State, 675 N.E.2d 668, 673 (Ind. 1996), reh’g denied)(“Although insanity and GBMI both require proof of some form of mental disorder or impairment, a finding of insanity also requires a showing of the defendant’s inability to understand the wrongfulness of the criminal conduct; mental illness alone is not a defense to a crime.”)
Findings of guilty but mentally ill (“GBMI”): Sentencing
• [A] GBMI verdict is a conviction.
Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 708 n. 9 (Ind. 2010), reh’g denied
• A finding of guilty but mentally ill is not the same as a finding of guilty.
Hensley v. State, 575 N.E.2d 1053, 1056 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), reh’g denied, trans. denied
• The difference between guilty and guilty but mentally ill does not compel a difference in sentencing.
Baer v. State, 942 N.E.2d 80, 90 (Ind. 2011), reh’g denied
See Scammahorn v. State, 506 N.E.2d 1097, 1099 (Ind. 1987)(“The fact that the jury found [the defendant] to be guilty but mentally ill did not require special treatment as far as sentencing was concerned.”)
See also Powell v.State, 751 N.E.2d 311, 317-18 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001)(quoting Archer v. State, 689 N.E.2d 678, 684 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied)(“Our supreme court has stated that a ‘guilty but mentally ill’ defendant ‘is not automatically entitled to any particular credit or deduction from his otherwise aggravated sentence’ simply because he is mentally ill.”)
• [Generally,] whenever a defendant is found guilty but mentally ill at the time of the crime or enters a plea to that effect that is accepted by the court, the court shall sentence the defendant in the same manner as a defendant found guilty of the offense.
• [I]n sentencing a GBMI defendant “in the same manner” as any other guilty defendant, trial courts should at a minimum carefully consider on the record what mitigating weight, if any, to accord to any evidence of mental illness, even though there is no obligation to give the evidence the same weight the defendant does. A verdict of GBMI may signal that significant evidence of mitigating value on the point has been presented.
Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28, 30 (Ind. 1998)
Pruitt v. State, 903 N.E.2d 899, 921 (Ind. 2009), reh’g denied(quoting Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28, 30 (Ind. 1998))
• [This Court] recently outlined several considerations that bear on the weight, if any, that should be given to mental illness in sentencing. These factors include: (1) the extent of the defendant’s inability to control his or her behavior due to the disorder or impairment; (2) overall limitations on functioning; (3) the duration of the mental illness; and (4) the extent of any nexus between the disorder or impairment and the commission of the crime.
Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28, 30 (Ind. 1998)(citing Archer v. State, 689 N.E.2d 678, 685 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied)
Smith v. State, 770 N.E.2d 818, 823 (Ind. 2002)(citing Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28, 30 (Ind. 1998))(“[T]here are several factors that bear on this determination, including . . . .”)
Bryant v. State, 984 N.E.2d 240, 252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied(“[T]here are four factors that bear on the weight to be given to mental illness at sentencing . . . .”)
• The factors are not exclusive but are among those the trial court must consider in determining what, if any, mitigating weight to give to any evidence of a defendant’s mental illness after a finding or plea of guilty but mentally ill.
Smith v. State, 770 N.E.2d 818, 823 (Ind. 2002)(emphasis added)
Findings of guilty but mentally ill (“GBMI”): Other consequences of a GBMI verdict
• The trial court sentences a GBMI defendant “in the same manner as a defendant found guilty of the offense,” but the full consequences of a GBMI verdict are different from the consequences of a guilty verdict.
Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 708 n. 9 (Ind. 2010), reh’g denied(quoting IC 35-36-2-5(a))
See Georgopulos v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1138, 1141 (Ind. 2000)(“Contrary to the language in [the defendant’s] tendered instruction, there are indeed consequences to a jury verdict of guilty but mentally ill that are different from a verdict of guilty.”)
• Before sentencing the defendant under [IC 35-36-2-5(a)], the court shall require the defendant to be evaluated by a physician licensed under IC 25-22.5 who practices psychiatric medicine, a licensed psychologist, or a community mental health center (as defined in IC 12-7-2-38). However, the court may waive this requirement if the defendant was evaluated by a physician licensed under IC 25-22.5 who practices psychiatric medicine, a licensed psychologist, or a community mental health center and the evaluation is contained in the record of the defendant’s trial or plea agreement hearing.
• If a defendant who is found guilty but mentally ill at the time of the crime is committed to the department of correction, the defendant shall be further evaluated and then treated in such a manner as is psychiatrically indicated for the defendant’s mental illness. Treatment may be provided by:
(1) the department of correction; or
(2) the division of mental health and addiction after transfer under IC 11-10-4.
• If a defendant who is found guilty but mentally ill at the time of the crime is placed on probation, the court may, in accordance with IC 35-38-2-2.3, require that the defendant undergo treatment.
• When a court enters a verdict of GBMI, the defendant must be psychiatrically evaluated before sentencing. Then, when the Department of Correction receives the defendant as a prisoner, he is further evaluated and treated in a manner as indicated by the mental illness. This treatment may be done by the Department of Correction or the Division of Mental Health and Addiction, either during imprisonment or during defendant’s probation.
Baer v. State, 942 N.E.2d 80, 90 (Ind. 2011), reh’g denied(citations omitted)
See Georgopulos v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1138, 1141 (Ind. 2000)(internal citations omitted)(“It is true that whenever a defendant is found guilty but mentally ill at the time of the crime, the court shall sentence the defendant in the same manner as a defendant found guilty of the offense. However, a physician must evaluate the guilty but mentally ill defendant before the trial court may sentence him. Also, at the Department of Correction, the guilty but mentally ill defendant must be further evaluated and treated as is psychiatrically indicated for his mental illness. Neither of these additional procedures is available to a defendant who is found simply guilty of an offense.”)
See also Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 708 n. 9 (Ind. 2010), reh’g denied(citing Georgopulos v. State, 735 N.E.2d 1138, 1141 (Ind. 2000))(“[A] physician must evaluate the GBMI defendant before sentencing, and the defendant must be appropriately treated and evaluated once in the Department of Correction’s custody.”)