Smith v. State
614 P.2d 300 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant introduces some evidence to support an insanity defense, the burden shifts to the state to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. An appellate court will uphold a trier of fact's finding of sanity if it is supported by substantial evidence, which may include the testimony of a single expert witness over several conflicting experts, as well as lay testimony about the defendant's conduct.
Facts:
- Allen J. Smith, who had a history of paranoid schizophrenia and prior psychiatric hospitalizations, was a private in the U.S. Army.
- Two days before the incident, Smith purchased a 9-millimeter pistol.
- On September 28, 1977, Smith was informed by his captain that he would be discharged from the army as an undesirable within approximately seven days.
- Shortly after being notified of his discharge, Smith entered a supply room, pulled out his pistol, and commandeered a pickup truck at gunpoint from other sergeants.
- Smith fled the army base in the truck and was pursued by police vehicles through Anchorage.
- After abandoning the truck, Smith ran into a wooded area, where he encountered judicial services officer Leon Jordan.
- Smith lay down behind a tree, pointed his gun at Jordan, and fired twice, seriously wounding the officer in the chest and shoulder.
- Smith was subsequently shot in the leg by Jordan and captured by police.
Procedural Posture:
- Allen J. Smith was charged in the superior court, a trial court, with shooting with intent to kill, wound, or maim.
- At a court trial (bench trial), Smith asserted the affirmative defense of not guilty by reason of insanity.
- The superior court found that the state had proven Smith sane beyond a reasonable doubt and found him guilty of the offense.
- The trial court sentenced Smith to fifteen years imprisonment with five years suspended.
- Smith, as appellant, appealed both his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Alaska, the state's highest court, against the State of Alaska, as appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the state present substantial evidence to prove a defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt when one of three expert witnesses testifies the defendant could conform his conduct to the law, while two experts testify he could not, and lay testimony describes the defendant's actions as lucid and internally consistent?
Opinions:
Majority - Rabinowitz, Chief Justice
Yes, the state presented substantial evidence to prove Smith was sane beyond a reasonable doubt. Once the defendant meets the initial burden of presenting 'some evidence' of insanity, the state must prove sanity. In this case, although two of the three medical experts concluded Smith lacked the substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, the third expert, Dr. Rader, disagreed. Dr. Rader opined that Smith's actions on the day of the shooting were internally consistent, goal-oriented, and not a product of his schizophrenia, and suggested Smith was malingering. The trier of fact is permitted to weigh the credibility of expert testimony and may adopt the findings of one expert over a greater number of others. Furthermore, lay testimony regarding the lucidity of Smith's actions on that day provided additional support for the trial court's conclusion. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, there was substantial evidence to support the finding of sanity.
Dissenting - Boochever, Justice
No, the state failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith had substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the law. Smith had an overwhelming background of serious mental illness involving prior violent and irrational conduct. The state's expert, Dr. Rader, based his conclusion on the irrational premise that Smith's motive was to get out of the army, despite Smith having just been told he would be discharged in seven days. While individual acts may appear rational, they are not inconsistent with a lack of substantial capacity when performed in pursuit of a delusional goal. In the total absence of a rational motive for Smith's violent conduct, and in light of his extensive psychiatric history, the state did not prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high degree of deference appellate courts grant to the trier of fact's assessment of witness credibility, particularly in cases involving conflicting expert testimony on a defendant's mental state. It clarifies that a clinical diagnosis of a severe mental illness like schizophrenia does not, by itself, equate to legal insanity. The ruling establishes that a fact-finder can legally conclude that a defendant's actions, if they appear logical and goal-oriented, were not a product of their illness, thereby satisfying the state's burden to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
Unlock the full brief for Smith v. State