State v. George
2000 WL 1409296, 768 So.2d 748 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Expert testimony supporting an insanity defense is inadmissible if it is based on a scientific theory that does not meet the reliability standards of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Louisiana's insanity defense follows the M'Naughten rule and does not recognize the concept of an 'irresistible impulse'.
Facts:
- Dennis George and Dewander Bennett had a sexual relationship that resulted in a son, after which George ended the relationship.
- Following the breakup, Bennett repeatedly harassed George by telephoning and visiting his home, and once slashed the tires on his truck.
- On May 9, 1997, Bennett went to the home of George's mother and engaged in a verbal altercation with George, his new girlfriend, and his mother.
- During this confrontation, George retrieved a shotgun but was told by his mother to put it down, and a police officer was called who ordered Bennett to leave the premises.
- Approximately two hours later, George returned to Bernice, located Bennett, and blocked the driveway she was in with his truck.
- George exited his truck with a concealed .38 revolver, confronted Bennett, and said, "Bitch, you have f_____ with me for the last time."
- As Bennett and her friends tried to flee, George shot her in the head.
- George then advanced on Bennett as she lay on the ground, stated, "I told you I was going to kill you," and shot her in the head a second time.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana indicted Dennis George for second-degree murder in the trial court.
- George entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.
- The State filed a motion in limine to exclude expert testimony based on the theory of 'Limbic Psychotic Trigger Reaction' (LPTR), which the trial court granted.
- George (as applicant) sought review from the intermediate appellate court, which granted a writ and reversed the trial court's order.
- The State (as applicant) sought review from the Louisiana Supreme Court, which granted a writ, reversed the intermediate appellate court, and reinstated the trial court's original ruling excluding the testimony.
- Following a trial, a jury found George guilty of the lesser responsive verdict of manslaughter.
- The trial court sentenced George to 25 years at hard labor and denied his motion to reconsider the sentence.
- George (as appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, with the State of Louisiana 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 a trial court violate a defendant's right to present a defense by excluding expert psychiatric testimony and a related report that are based on a scientific theory, such as 'Limbic Psychotic Trigger Reaction,' which fails to meet established standards for scientific reliability?
Opinions:
Majority - Gaskins, J.
No. A trial court does not violate a defendant's right to present a defense by properly exercising its gatekeeping function to exclude expert testimony based on an unreliable scientific theory. The court found that the proposed syndrome, Limbic Psychotic Trigger Reaction (LPTR), failed to meet the reliability standards set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., as it was an untested, unpublished theory with no known error rate and was not generally accepted in the scientific community. Because LPTR was the sole basis for the expert's opinion on the defendant's insanity, the trial court and the Louisiana Supreme Court correctly ruled that the testimony and the report based on it were inadmissible. Furthermore, the defense's attempt to argue 'irresistible impulse' during closing arguments was improper, as Louisiana law strictly adheres to the M'Naughten test for insanity, which requires proving the defendant was incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the trial court's 'gatekeeping' role in Louisiana criminal cases, mandating the exclusion of expert testimony based on scientific theories that lack reliability under the Daubert standard. It affirms that a defendant's constitutional right to present a defense does not override evidentiary rules designed to prevent 'junk science' from reaching the jury. The case also serves as a strong reinforcement of Louisiana's strict adherence to the M'Naughten standard for insanity, explicitly rejecting defenses like 'irresistible impulse.' This precedent makes it significantly more challenging for defendants to introduce novel psychological syndromes as a basis for an insanity defense in Louisiana.
Unlock the full brief for State v. George