Challenging the Insanity Defense

Facts of the Case

The trial court heard that defendant Lori Barcroft's mental health had been deteriorating for years. Her adult son became increasingly worried about his mother and, believing she was possessed, asked for his pastor's help. The pastor recommended Ms. Barcroft be hospitalized and suggested she move out of the son's home. Ms. Barcroft's mother, who took her in, also became concerned. She witnessed Ms. Barcroft making paranoid statements about their family and the pastor. She also discovered that her daughter had recently acquired a gun.

Days later, when the pastor arrived at his church, Ms. Barcroft was observed by a volunteer. She was walking around the building wearing a black hooded sweatshirt, dark jeans, and a backpack. As the volunteer approached her, Ms. Barcroft asked for the pastor. She followed the volunteer to the pastor, whom she shot. She turned the gun to the volunteer and told him to go. She then fled the church, and hid in a bush, where police found her several minutes later. She refused to surrender until the police threatened to shoot. The officers noted that she was quiet and cooperative and that she offered, “I'm the one you're looking for” (Barcroft, p 1001 (citing Tr. Vol II, p 142)). When officers searched her backpack, they found ammunition, binoculars, and letters addressed to her family.

During Ms. Barcroft's interrogation, she gave a lengthy confession full of delusional content. She believed the pastor and his allies were responsible for several deaths in her family. She believed she was next. Facing murder charges, Ms. Barcroft invoked the insanity defense and waived her right to a jury trial. She was evaluated by three mental health experts. They reached unanimous opinions that Ms. Barcroft was insane at the time of the crime and was not able to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions.

Weighing all the evidence, the trial court found her guilty but mentally ill. Although the court acknowledged her mental illness, it determined that she was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions. The court relied on her demeanor during the crime: that she planned the crime, spared the volunteer's life, fled, and ultimately cooperated with the police. Furthermore, the trial court judge thought Ms. Barcroft may have had a nonpsychotic motive for the crime, i.e., retribution for the pastor's suggestion that she be hospitalized and move out of her home.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision convicting Ms. Barcroft. Relying on Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699 (Ind. 2010), a similar case regarding expert testimony and the insanity defense, the court of appeals determined, due to her evident history of mental illness, unanimous expert opinions finding her to be insane at the time of the crime, and a lack of evidence of malingering, that “the demeanor evidence relied on by the trial court simply had no probative value on the question of her sanity” (Barcroft v. State, 89 N.E.3d 448 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017, p 457). The state appealed this decision.

Ruling and Reasoning

The Supreme Court of Indiana opined that the role of the fact finder is to weigh the evidence to determine whether an individual was insane at the time of the crime. Thus, it is the fact finder's prerogative to discredit expert testimony and rely on other probative evidence. The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed the trial court's decision and confirmed the earlier finding of guilty but mentally ill.

The state supreme court based its decision on several factors. First, it determined that there was sufficient demeanor evidence to support Ms. Barcroft's sanity at the time of the murder. The majority determined that Ms. Barcroft had shown evidence of deliberate planning and knowledge of wrongfulness. Thus, the court determined that it was reasonable for the fact finder to reject Ms. Barcroft's insanity defense.

Second, the court determined that, given concerns about the experts' opinion testimony, it was reasonable for the trial court to reject the insanity defense. Even though the court highlighted the importance of expert opinion, it “refuse[d] to elevate the value of expert opinion over other forms of probative evidence” (Barcroft, p 1006). The court highlighted that “psychiatry and psychology are imprecise sciences” (Barcroft, p 1006) and found that the lack of unanimous diagnostic consensus between the experts could reasonably cast doubt on the experts' credibility. In addition, the court stated that it is possible that the trial court discredited the expert testimonies given that the experts' evaluations were held months after the time of the offense. The court also found other problems with the experts' reports and analysis, such as the failure to review certain documents or evidence, that could have led the trial court to discredit the experts' opinions. Finally, the state supreme court highlighted that portions of the expert testimony could have supported that Ms. Barcroft was sane at the time of the crime. The experts made some concessions about her belief system, particularly that she could have had a nonpsychotic motive. Similarly, one of the expert reports indicated that a person can have delusions and also maintain the ability to make some rational decisions. For all these reasons, the court found that it was possible for the fact finder to assign less probative value to expert testimony.

Finally, the state supreme court acknowledged that the lack of a well-documented history of mental illness throughout Ms. Barcroft's life did not provide much support for her insanity defense. Her medical records never formally included a diagnosis of a psychotic disorder, although there was mention of “questionable schizophrenia.” Although this does not preclude an individual from successfully being found legally insane, “the lack of such history is a circumstance that a fact finder may consider in evaluating an insanity defense” (Barcroft, p 1008, quoting Lawson v. State, 966 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), p 1282).