Lyon v. State
| Decision Date | 12 February 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 79S00-9203-CR-179,79S00-9203-CR-179 |
| Citation | 608 N.E.2d 1368 |
| Parties | Robert Lawrence LYON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Michael B. Troemel, Merritt, Troemel, Meyer & Hamilton, Lafayette, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Cynthia L. Ploughe, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
A jury trial resulted in the conviction of appellant of Murder.
The facts are: Appellant had a long history of discontent concerning his supervisor, Barbara Clark, the victim in this case. Clark was a supervisor of janitors at Purdue University. Appellant was a Korean War veteran who apparently suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from his war experiences. After four or five years of working for the University under the supervision of Clark, appellant was put on long-term disability and sent to the Employee Assistance Program to deal with his mental condition. He had made threats to kill both himself and Clark. He eventually was terminated from Purdue University, and after becoming extremely frustrated concerning disability benefits, he loaded a pistol with three rounds, walked into Clark's office and fired three shots, two of which struck Clark fatally wounding her. Appellant then walked into an adjacent office, laid the gun on the desk, and waited for police to arrive.
After appellant was charged with murder, the trial court appointed pauper counsel, who filed a notice of defense of mental disease or defect pursuant to Ind.Code Sec. 35-36-2-1. The trial court appointed a psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Rahdert, and a psychologist, Dr. Brian Premo, to examine appellant. Dr. Rahdert testified that he diagnosed appellant as having a delusion disorder; however, he thought appellant was able to differentiate between right and wrong. Dr. Premo testified that appellant was not suffering from any mental disease that would have made him unable to control his behavior.
Appellant called Dr. Richard Loughhead, a psychologist, who testified that he felt appellant's Korean War experience, where he had been required to kill women and children as part of his duty, had a profound effect upon him. He thought appellant possibly was suffering from some organic brain dysfunction and further identified his diagnosis to be that appellant had dementia presenile onset. He felt that appellant was taking out his stress, brought on by prior experiences, on Clark, who represented an authoritarian figure to him.
Appellant claims the preponderance of the evidence supports his defense of insanity. We cannot agree with appellant in this observation. Both doctors appointed by the court testified they felt that appellant had the ability to differentiate between right and wrong even though he was suffering from mental disability. Although Dr. Loughhead testified as to appellant's mental disability, nowhere in his brief does appellant claim Dr. Loughhead found him to be incapable of differentiating right from wrong. We have read Dr. Loughhead's testimony in its entirety and nowhere do we find such a statement.
Mental disorder alone is not enough to excuse a defendant for the perpetration of a crime. The defect must be to such an extent that he was "unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the offense." Ind.Code 35-41-3-6. In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Galloway v. State
...Lyon v. State, the fact that the defendant did not flee but rather waited for police in the next room was probative of sanity. 608 N.E.2d 1368, 1369-70 (Ind.1993). If a piece of demeanor evidence standing alone is considered probative, evidence of the defendant's actions after the crime cou......
-
Gambill v. State
...the defendant to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the affirmative defense of insanity. I.C. § 35-41-4-1(b); Lyon v. State, 608 N.E.2d 1368, 1370 (Ind.1993). A determination of insanity is a question for the trier of fact. "The jury is free to disregard the testimony of experts and......
-
John R. Berry Iv v. State
...Lyon v. State, the fact that the defendant did not flee but rather waited for police in the next room was probative of sanity. 608 N.E.2d 1368, 1369–70 (Ind.1993). If a piece of demeanor evidence standing alone is considered probative, evidence of the defendant's actions after the crime cou......
-
Thompson v. State
...committed the act `knowingly' this is not tantamount to requiring the State to prove that the defendant was `sane.'" Lyon v. State, 608 N.E.2d 1368, 1370 (Ind. 1993). As we said more [A]lthough [the defendant] offered evidence of mental illness, the State has no obligation to offer evidence......