State v. Perry - 502 So. 2d 543 (La. 1986)

Rule:

The defendant has the burden of establishing incapacity, because Louisiana law presumes the defendant is sane and responsible for his actions, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:432. The defense must prove by a clear preponderance of the evidence the defendant is incompetent to stand trial as a result of a mental disease or defect, La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 641. While a court is permitted to receive the aid of expert medical testimony on the issue, the ultimate decision of competency is the court's alone, La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 647. A trial court's determination of the mental capacity of a defendant is entitled to great weight, and his ruling will not be disturbed in the absence of manifest error.

Facts:

Defendant Michael Owen Perry was indicted on five counts of first-degree murder, in violation of La. R.S. 14:30. After deliberation during the guilt phase of his trial, the twelve-person jury unanimously concluded defendant was guilty as charged on all five counts. Following the presentation of evidence during the sentencing portion of the trial, the jury unanimously recommended defendant be sentenced to death on each count. The jury found the same two aggravating circumstances existed for each crime: the offender knowingly created a risk of death or great bodily harm to more than one person; and the offense was committed in an especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel manner. The trial judge subsequently imposed the death sentence. Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence, claiming that he was insane.

Issue:

Should the defendant’s conviction be reversed on the ground of insanity? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment of the lower court, holding that the defendant had the burden of establishing incapacity because Louisiana law presumed the defendant was sane and responsible for his actions, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 15:432. The court also determined that defendant failed to carry his burden of proof that he was insane, because expert medical witnesses only testified that defendant had a personality disorder or paranoid illness. In addition, the court stated that defendant was within his right to withdraw a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and enter a single plea of not guilty. Further the court observed that gruesome photographs of the murder scene were not so prejudicial as to deny defendant a fair trial and therefore was correctly admitted at trial. Finally, the court noted that defendant's confession to the police was voluntarily made and thus was admissible. The court concluded that defendant's death sentence was not excessive and upheld the lower court's judgment.