Ms. Elizabeth Altomari's Guide : Primary Sources

Overview: Appellant was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of attempted murder. He was given two sentences of death. Appellant claimed the trial court erred in excusing for cause several prospective jurors because of their views on the death penalty; excluding a witness's testimony that her mother had told her that one of appellant's victims had raped her; failing to give a complete instruction on the meaning of "duress" when the jury asked for the definition of that word; finding that both murders were committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner; finding that both murders were committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification; and sentencing appellant to death because such a sentence was not proportionately warranted under the facts of the case. The court affirmed all of appellant's convictions and his conviction for attempted murder, but vacated his death sentences and reduced them to life imprisonment without parole for twenty-five years because neither of the two aggravating circumstances found by the trial court were properly applied in the case.

Outcome: The trial court's judgment convicting appellant of murder and attempted murder was affirmed, but the death sentences imposed were vacated because neither of the two aggravating circumstances found by the trial court were properly applied, and it would be improper to apply the contemporary conviction factor under the circumstances. Accordingly, the death sentences were reduced to a period of imprisonment.

Overview: Appellant shot and killed his ex-wife, another victim, and attempted to kill three more people. Appellant used the insanity defense arguing that he was under the influence of medication for severe headaches and that he had taken alcohol and possibly 29 capsules of the drug prior to the shooting. Defense counsel attempted to proffer testimony of two experts who had been given an hypothetical as relevant evidence concerning his state of mind, whether his actions closely resembled a depraved mind as opposed to premeditated behavior, and whether he was able to form the specific intent to convict him of first-degree murder. The lower court rejected the proffered testimony as irrelevant, convicted and sentence him and appellant challenged the judgment. The court agreed with the lower court that the testimony was irrelevant as to the issue of depravity and state of mind. However, the court found that the proffered testimony was very relevant to the issue of specific intent because evidence of voluntary intoxication was critical to appellant's ability to form the specific intent to commit the crimes. The court therefore reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.

Outcome: Appellant's convictions for murder and attempted murder were reversed because the lower court improperly excluded expert testimony as to appellant's ability to form the specific intent to commit the crimes while under the influence of drugs or intoxicants.

Overview: Appellant was arrested for murder. A jury found appellant guilty of both premeditated murder and felony murder and recommended the death penalty. The trial court sentenced appellant to death, finding four aggravating factors and one nonstatutory mitigating factor. Appellant argued that the trial judge reversibly erred by refusing to allow appellant to present expert testimony during the guilt phase of the trial to support his insanity defense. The court found no error in the trial court's refusal to allow a professor of religion to testify as an expert because he was not qualified to testify as to the sanity or insanity of any individual. However, the trial court did err by refusing to allow a clinical psychologist to testify as an expert. The psychologist's testimony concerned whether appellant was incapable of distinguishing right from wrong as a result of displayed characteristics of a schizophrenic disorder. The testimony was relevant to appellant's insanity defense. The trial court's ruling effectively prevented appellant from presenting his insanity defense to the jury. Therefore, the conviction was reversed, the sentence vacated, and the case remanded for a new trial.

Outcome: The trial court's judgment that convicted appellant of first-degree murder and imposed a sentence of death was reversed and vacated because the trial court erred by refusing to allow a clinical psychologist to testify as an expert for appellant's insanity defense. Appellant was entitled to a new trial.

(1) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.—All persons are presumed to be sane. It is an affirmative defense to a criminal prosecution that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant was insane. Insanity is established when:

(a) The defendant had a mental infirmity, disease, or defect; and

(b) Because of this condition, the defendant:

1. Did not know what he or she was doing or its consequences; or

2. Although the defendant knew what he or she was doing and its consequences, the defendant did not know that what he or she was doing was wrong.

Mental infirmity, disease, or defect does not constitute a defense of insanity except as provided in this subsection.

(2) BURDEN OF PROOF.—The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.

Administrative Law is the body of law that governs and regulates the operation and procedures of government administrative agencies as well as the relation of these government administrative agencies to the legislature, executive, judiciary, and society as a whole.  

Administrative Law is typically divided into three sub-parts:

(1) The statues endowing agencies with powers and establishing rules of substantive law relating to those powers;

(2) The body of agency-made law, consisting of administrative rules, regulations, reports, or opinions containing findings of fact, and orders; and 

(3) The legal principles governing the acts of public agents when those acts conflict with private rights.

The National Institute of Mental Health, known as the NIMH, is the leading federal agency that provides research and assistance regarding mental health.  This agency is a one-stop-shop for research, clinical trials, specific mental disorders, clinical studies, news and events, statistics, and more.  The NIMH contains useful information for legal questions, but it is also an informative resources for mentally disordered offenders who will potentially be pleading the defense of insanity as well as their loved-ones who wish to understand their illness better.