Reversing Guilty but Mentally Ill in Favor of NGRI

Facts of the Case

In 2005, Jesse Payne was charged with two counts of arson, accused of burning down two historic landmark bridges and attempting the arson of another. According to medical records, Mr. Payne had a long and well-documented history of mental illness since age 13, including diagnoses of delusional disorder, schizophrenia, polysubstance abuse, and antisocial personality disorder. Mr. Payne's psychiatric history was notable for repeated hospitalizations, medication nonadherence, chronic delusions, and hallucinations. He spent 11 years undergoing competency restoration prior to standing trial. All three court-appointed experts (two psychiatrists and a psychologist) did not substantively differ in their diagnoses, as each expert diagnosed Mr. Payne with schizophrenia and delusional disorder. The experts also agreed in their opinion of Mr. Payne's legal insanity, although one expert, Dr. Mahmood, testified that he did not have “a very strong opinion” of whether Mr. Payne “appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct” at the time of the 2005 arson (Payne, p 711 (citing Tr. Vol. 5, pp 92–3)). At trial, Mr. Payne testified to his belief in a conspiracy of government officials aimed at stopping him from exposing their “misdeeds” by abusing and “terrorizing” him.

The prosecutor introduced demeanor evidence aimed at showing “consciousness of guilt,” including Mr. Payne's acting late at night, telling police that he had purchased the fuel in his car for camping, and attempting to establish an alibi by providing convenience store receipts (Payne, p 711 (Tr. Vol. 5, pp 199, 202–4)). Rejecting the insanity defense, the jury found Mr. Payne guilty but mentally ill on all counts. Mr. Payne was sentenced to 90 years in total: 20 years for each count with a 30-year enhancement for his habitual-offender status, the maximum sentenced allowed by statute. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that demeanor evidence of Mr. Payne's deliberate and premeditated conduct was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion of his sanity at the time of the offenses.

Ruling and Reasoning

In Indiana, as in other states, the insanity defense is an affirmative defense, and a defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. The Indiana Supreme Court referenced Barcroft v. State, 111 N.E.3d 997 (Ind. 2018), for the position that a factfinder may consider all relevant evidence to reach a verdict, including expert testimony, a defendant's history of mental illness, and demeanor evidence. When expert testimony is unanimous and the defendant has a well-documented history of mental illness, the court found that the probative value of demeanor evidence “effectively dissolves.” Hence, the Supreme Court of Indiana reversed the guilty but mentally ill conviction, found the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity, and remanded the case back to the trial court to hold a hearing on the state's petition for Mr. Payne's commitment to an appropriate treatment facility.

The court based its ruling on several factors. It acknowledged that the demeanor evidence in Mr. Payne's case could, on its own, lead to the inference that Mr. Payne appreciated the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the offense. The court was clear, however, that demeanor evidence “must be considered as a whole, in relation to all the other evidence” (Payne, p 712 (citing Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, p 714 (Ind. 2010)). The court emphasized that to do otherwise would give factfinders “carte blanche” and make appellate review “virtually impossible.”

The other evidence the court cited in this case was Mr. Payne's documented psychiatric history and the unanimous expert opinions. The court commented on the consistency of Mr. Payne's diagnosis of schizophrenia, and resulting symptoms of delusions and hallucinations, over time. As there was no conflict in expert testimony regarding Mr. Payne's mental state, the court deemed that Mr. Payne's extensive psychiatric history “clearly supports a finding of insanity” (Payne, p 710).

In this case, the court found no fault with the psychiatric or psychological experts. Although the court noted that expert testimony is “purely advisory” and that a factfinder may discredit or disregard it in favor of alternative probative evidence, it nonetheless said that experts are “central to a determination of insanity” (Payne, p 710 (citing Barcroft, p 1003)). The Indiana Supreme Court directly compared Mr. Payne's case with Barcroft, a similar case in which a guilty but mentally ill verdict was reached and later upheld despite unanimous expert testimony of the defendant's legal insanity. In Barcroft, the court found “flaws” and “inconsistencies” in the experts' opinions, including lack of agreement with respect to diagnosis and insufficient record review. Problems with the expert opinion in Barcroft helped support the court's finding that the factfinder was justified in rejecting the defendant's insanity defense and finding the defendant guilty but mentally ill, given the demeanor evidence in the case from which to infer the defendant's sanity. In Payne, the court asserted, there were no problems with expert opinion. Although one expert could not form a strong opinion regarding Mr. Payne's sanity at the time of the 2005 arson, the court did not construe this as a conflict between the experts.

Taken together, Mr. Payne's well-documented psychiatric history and the credible, unanimous expert opinions of insanity outweighed the probative value of demeanor evidence and led to the court's finding of not guilty by reason of insanity instead of guilty but mentally ill.