 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Flake8/5/2003
reiterated his belief "that any physical contact with Mr. Flake would be very dangerous on any male's part."
The defense rested at the conclusion of Dr. Hutson's testimony, and the State offered no rebuttal proof. The jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of first degree murder, thereby implicitly rejecting the insanity defense. The trial court entered a judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict. The defendant appealed, arguing in the Court of Criminal Appeals that he had met his burden of establishing the insanity defense by clear and convincing evidence and that the jury had erred in rejecting the defense. The intermediate appellate court agreed, and referring to the intermediate appellate court decision in Flake I, stated, " t is our view that if the defendant proved the defense of insanity in the Carpenter case, the evidence offered here is even clearer and more convincing . No rational trier of fact could have found otherwise." Accordingly, the Court of Criminal Appeals modified the judgment to not guilty by reason of insanity and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 33-7-303.
Thereafter, the State filed an application for permission to appeal, arguing that the Court of Criminal Appeals erred in modifying the jury's verdict. We granted the State's application to consider this case in light of the majority decision of this Court in Flake I.
Insanity Defense
We begin our analysis of the issue in this appeal with Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-11-501, which provides as follows:
Insanity. (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature or wrongfulness of such defendant's acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
(b) As used in this section, "mental disease or defect" does not include any abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.
(c) No expert witness may testify as to whether the defendant was or was not insane as set forth in subsection (a). Such ultimate issue is a matter for the trier of fact alone.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-501. As we recognized in Flake I, under this statute, the defense applies only when the defendant has a severe mental disease or defect which results in the defendant's being "unable to appreciate the nature or wrongfulness of such defendant's acts." 88 S.W.3d at 550. Furthermore, this statute squarely places upon the defendant the burden of establishing the defense by clear and convincing evidence, and unlike prior law, the State has no obligation to offer evidence establishing the defendant's sanity. Id. Evidence is clear and convincing when "there is no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence." Id. at 551 (quoting State v. Holder, 15 S.W.3d 905, 911( Tenn. Crim. App. 1999), perm app. denied (Tenn. 2000)). Furthermore, this statute prohibits both prosecution and defense experts from offering opinion testimony on whether or not the defendant was sane at the time the offense was committed, declaring that the ultimate issue is "a matter for the trier of fact alone." Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-501(c); see also, Flake I, 88 S.W.3d at 551.
In light of this statute, this Court held in Flake I that appellate courts in Tennessee should apply a reasonableness standard of appellate review when evaluating a
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Tennessee DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|