Thompson v. State
| Decision Date | 30 January 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A04-0205-CR-215.,49A04-0205-CR-215. |
| Citation | 782 N.E.2d 451 |
| Parties | Rita D. THOMPSON, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Timothy J. O'Connor, O'Connor & Auersch, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Cynthia L. Ploughe, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
Appellant-defendant Rita D. Thompson appeals her conviction for Residential Entry,1 a class D felony. Specifically, Thompson claims that her conviction may not stand because the State presented no evidence that she was sane during the commission of her crime. Concluding that that the evidence presented to the trial court showed without conflict that Thompson could not appreciate the wrongfulness of her actions at the time she committed the crime, we reverse.
The facts most favorable to the judgment are that on February 12, 2001, Thompson went to the home of Alisha Beeler to use Beeler's bath. Beeler—who knew that Thompson was mentally ill—let Thompson in but later became alarmed when Thompson "began to talk strangely" to the children in the house. Appellant's App. p. 17. Thompson briefly went to her car to retrieve some bath items. At this point, Beeler locked the door to prevent Thompson from returning. When Thompson attempted to enter Beeler's home, Beeler informed her that she was no longer welcome. Thompson became irate, yelling and kicking the door. Thompson then kicked at a front window until the window broke, whereupon Thompson entered the house. After yelling ensued between Beeler and Thompson, Thompson retrieved some personal items and left.
As Thompson was driving away from Beeler's home, Officer Brady Ball of the Indianapolis Police Department arrived. Other officers stopped Thompson's vehicle and, after obtaining general information, allowed her to leave. Beeler related the events that had occurred to Officer Ball, who later obtained Thompson's address from the officers that had briefly detained her. Officer Ball proceeded to Thompson's residence, where she was arrested. On February 13, 2001, the State charged Thompson with residential entry in the Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division, Room Nine. An initial hearing was held the same day, whereupon Thompson was released on bail.
In a separate incident, on February 14, 2001, Thompson was arrested for charging at a friend with a knife. On February 23, 2001, the State charged Thompson with attempted battery and criminal recklessness in the Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division, Room Five. Judge Grant Hawkins appointed two psychiatrists to evaluate Thompson's competency to stand trial. Drs. Dwight Schuster and Ned Masbaum found that Thompson, though competent to stand trial, was not able to understand the wrongfulness of her actions on February 14, 2001, due to mental illness. Appellant's App. p. 50, 57.
On December 20, 2001, Thompson waived her right to trial by jury in her residential entry case. Thompson and the State stipulated to the facts stated in the probable cause affidavit, records in Thompson's probate court file, and Drs. Masbaum and Schuster's reports regarding the February 14, 2001 incident. Both parties agreed that the evidence they stipulated to would constitute the only evidence submitted to the trial court regarding the February 12, 2001 incident.
On March 11, 2002, the trial court found Thompson guilty but mentally ill and sentenced Thompson to three years in the Department of Correction. She now appeals.
Thompson argues that her conviction may not stand because the State presented no evidence demonstrating that she was sane at the time of the crime. Specifically, Thompson notes that while both expert witnesses stated in their medical evaluations that she was mentally ill on February 14, 2001, the State presented no evidence of her mental state.
We first note that Thompson admitted to kicking in Beeler's window and entering Beeler's home. Thompson's defense theory was that she was insane at the time of the offense, thereby vitiating her culpability. For her insanity defense to succeed, Thompson had to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that "as a result of mental disease or defect, [s]he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the offense." Ind.Code § 35-41-3-6(a); Robinette v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1162, 1167 (Ind.2001).
In addressing Thompson's claim that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction, we will not reweigh the evidence. Brasher v. State, 746 N.E.2d 71, 72 (Ind.2001). Rather, we look to the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences therefrom. Id. A defendant who appeals a judgment rejecting the defense of insanity must demonstrate that "the evidence was without conflict and led only to the conclusion that the defendant was insane when the crime was committed." Robinette, 741 N.E.2d at 1167. Furthermore, a fact-finder may discount the testimony of experts in determining whether the defendant was insane at the time of the crime and rely on the testimony of lay witnesses. Id. Lay witness testimony regarding a defendant's normal demeanor before and after a crime is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. Barany v. State, 658 N.E.2d 60, 64 (Ind.1995).
In this case, the medical experts unequivocally stated that Thompson could not appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct on February 14, 2001. Dr. Schuster's medical opinion was that Thompson "was of unsound mind, in the legal sense of that term, on or about February 14, 2001, in that she was suffering from a mental illness which impaired her appreciation of the wrongfulness of her conduct." Appellant's App. p. 50. Dr. Masbaum's opinion was that Appellant's App. p. 57.
While the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. State
...It held that in the absence of evidence to contradict Thompson's expert testimony, she was entitled to an acquittal. Thompson v. State, 782 N.E.2d 451 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003). We granted Proof of Insanity Because Thompson admits to committing the alleged offense, the only issue before us is whet......