Role of Expert Opinion in an Insanity Defense

Facts of the Case

On November 17, 2019, Mr. Rodriguez killed his mother-in-law, Mary Fogle, after a reported verbal altercation. He and his wife, Allison Solis, were residing with Ms. Fogle in Wyoming at the time of the incident. Ms. Solis reported she witnessed the assault leading to Ms. Fogle's death. She alleged Mr. Rodriguez struck Ms. Fogle in the face 20 or more times before slitting her throat. Ms. Solis attempted to intervene, though stated that she was pushed away by Mr. Rodriguez and struck in the face. She stated Mr. Rodriguez then positioned Ms. Fogle's unconscious or deceased body and sexually assaulted Ms. Fogle. It was reported that Mr. Rodriguez threatened Ms. Solis' life if she were to seek help. The two then gathered Ms. Fogle's billfold, credit cards, checkbooks, and phone before fleeing to Colorado Springs in Ms. Fogle's vehicle. Once in Colorado, Mr. Rodriguez turned himself in at the insistence of a relative. He presented to a sheriff's department in Colorado Springs to confess to the murder of Ms. Fogle. During interviews, he “admitted killing Ms. Fogle and sexually assaulting her after killing her” (Rodriguez, p 853).

On November 19, 2019, Mr. Rodriguez was charged with one count of second-degree murder. This was later amended to one count of felony murder, one count of first-degree murder, and one count of domestic battery.

Mr. Rodriguez received three psychiatric evaluations related to his case. The first evaluation was to determine his fitness to proceed. He was evaluated by a forensic psychologist and found competent to stand trial and fit to proceed. The second evaluation occurred after he pleaded not guilty and NGMI. This evaluation, completed by a different forensic psychologist, concluded that he did not suffer from a mental illness or mental deficiency so severely abnormal as to have grossly and demonstrably impaired his perception or understanding of reality, and that he did not lack capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the alleged crime. A third evaluation was requested by Mr. Rodriguez after the second report was submitted. The forensic psychologist performing the third evaluation diagnosed Mr. Rodriguez with an unspecified personality disorder and an unspecified substance use disorder. The third forensic psychologist came to the same conclusion as the second evaluator, offering an opinion that Mr. Rodriguez did not meet statutory criteria for an NGMI defense.

Mr. Rodriguez later claimed self-defense during the trial, testifying that Ms. Fogle threatened him with a pizza cutter and a knife, leading to the altercation. The jury found Mr. Rodriguez guilty of second-degree murder and domestic battery. The district court sentenced him to a prison term of 70 years to life for the murder and six months for the domestic battery, both with credit for time served.

After being convicted, Mr. Rodriguez submitted an appeal citing prosecutorial misconduct that deprived him of a fair trial. He argued the prosecution committed misconduct twice during the opening statement by presenting an argument relating to Mr. Rodriguez's claim that he was acting in self-defense and twice during the closing statement by referring to his demeanor at trial. Mr. Rodriguez contended that the prosecutor's argument prejudiced him because it alluded to his mental state and thereby undermined his NGMI defense. During the original trial, these prosecutorial statements had been objected to by Mr. Rodriguez's counsel, and objections were sustained. A mistrial had been requested by his defense but denied by the district court. The district court explained that the objections had been sustained as the statements were considered arguments, but they did not rise to the level requiring or justifying a mistrial.

Ruling and Reasoning

The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed the district court's judgment and found that the prosecutor's arguments did not prejudice Mr. Rodriguez. They noted that argument in an opening statement is improper, but prosecutorial misconduct occurs only “when a prosecutor illegally or improperly attempts to persuade a jury ‘to wrongly convict a defendant or assess an unjustified punishment’” (Rodriguez, p 856, citing Hartley v. State, 460 P.3d 716 (Wyo. 2020), p 719). The court considered several factors when determining the degree of prejudice that resulted from the prosecutor's arguments. They did not find the prosecutorial statements severe or pervasive and noted the arguments were reliant on facts that were supported by evidence admitted at trial that Mr. Rodriguez did not deny.

Additionally, the court did not agree that the prosecutor's arguments prejudiced Mr. Rodriguez because they alluded to his mental state and therefore undermined his NGMI defense. The court noted that Mr. Rodriguez had to show that it was “reasonably probable he would have received a more favorable verdict if the error had not been made” (Rodriguez, p 857, citing Klingbeil v. State, 492 P.3d 279 (Wyo. 2021), p 289). Relating to his NGMI defense, the court noted that Mr. Rodriguez had failed to present evidence from which a “jury could reasonably conclude that his mental condition excused his murder of Ms. Fogle” (Rodriguez, p 857). It was noted that it was therefore “impossible” for him to show that it was reasonably probable he would have received a better verdict in the absence of the prosecutor's statements. The court found that there was significant evidence from the opinions of both forensic psychologists that when the incident took place, Mr. Rodriguez was not experiencing a severely abnormal mental condition, that he understood the wrongfulness of his conduct, and that he was able to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. The court stated that Mr. Rodriguez's claim of NGMI was supported solely by his personal testimony and not by expert forensic assessment. The court concluded that Mr. Rodriguez did not have a viable NGMI defense.