State v. Williams
804 So. 2d 932, 2001 WL 1659443 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant with a documented history of severe mental illness does not meet the burden of proving the affirmative defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence if expert testimony and the defendant's own coherent, self-serving statements indicate an ability to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offense.
Facts:
- On the evening of March 3, 1999, Thomas Williams was at his apartment with his estranged wife, Regina Williams, and two acquaintances, Joseph Landry and Reginal Cutno.
- Between 3:00 and 3:30 a.m., Landry and Cutno were awakened by Regina yelling, 'Oh, Mr. Joe, he stabbing me to death.'
- Landry entered the bedroom and saw Williams standing behind Regina while she was sitting in bed; Williams was drinking a beverage and did not appear agitated.
- As Landry and Cutno fled the apartment, they heard Regina collapse.
- Outside, they encountered the victim's daughter, Latasha Ward, who had heard her mother screaming for 'Tony' (Williams' nickname) to 'stop.'
- Upon forcibly re-entering the apartment, several witnesses found Regina Williams lying dead in a pool of blood with Thomas Williams next to her, stabbing himself with a knife.
- Regina Williams sustained sixteen stab wounds, five of which were potentially lethal, while Thomas Williams had multiple shallow, uniform lacerations that a physician later opined were self-inflicted.
- Immediately after the incident and in the following days, Williams told a physician and police officers that Regina had attacked and stabbed him first, and he had acted in self-defense.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Williams was charged by grand jury indictment with second-degree murder in a Louisiana trial court.
- He entered a dual plea of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.
- A sanity commission found Williams competent to stand trial.
- The trial court denied Williams' motions to suppress oral statements made on March 4, 1999, and a tape-recorded statement from March 6, 1999.
- A jury found Williams guilty as charged, and the trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment at hard labor without benefit of parole.
- The trial court denied Williams' motion for post-verdict judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial.
- Williams, as appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
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 defendant with a documented history of severe mental illness prove the affirmative defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence when the state's expert testifies the defendant could distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offense and the defendant's own statements suggest a rational, albeit self-serving, motive?
Opinions:
Majority - Kuhn, Judge
No. A defendant fails to prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence, despite a long history of mental illness and self-mutilation, when expert testimony and the defendant's own coherent, self-serving statements indicate he could distinguish right from wrong at the time of the offense. The jury reasonably rejected Williams' claim of self-defense because the State presented overwhelming evidence to the contrary, including eyewitness testimony that Williams was stabbing himself and forensic evidence that contradicted his account. The jury also reasonably concluded that a verbal argument was insufficient provocation to reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter. Most importantly, Williams did not meet his burden of proving insanity. Although Williams had an extensive history of psychiatric problems, the State's expert psychologist, Dr. Salcedo, testified that having a mental disorder does not mean a person cannot distinguish right from wrong. Dr. Salcedo concluded that Williams' lucid and rational statements claiming self-defense, made shortly after the incident, were inconsistent with a person in a psychotic state unable to comprehend the nature of his actions.
Analysis:
This case illustrates the significant burden a defendant faces when asserting the insanity defense in Louisiana. It establishes that even a long and well-documented history of severe psychiatric illness, including psychosis and self-mutilation, is insufficient on its own to prove legal insanity. The court's emphasis on the defendant's coherent, rational, and self-serving statements after the crime provides a strong precedent for using such statements as evidence of sanity. This decision reinforces that the legal standard for insanity hinges on the cognitive ability to distinguish right from wrong, not merely the presence of a mental disease, thereby narrowing the practical application of the defense.
