S. Ct. Crim. No. 2013-0067

In a prosecution for first-degree murder, unauthorized possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence, first-degree animal abuse, and unauthorized possession of ammunition, the convictions are reversed and the case is remanded for the Superior Court to enter an acquittal on the charge of unauthorized possession of ammunition and a judgment of not guilty by reason of insanity on the remaining charges because the People failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was sane at the time of the offenses. The correct test for insanity is not the so-called M'Naughten test of whether the defendant had sufficient reason to know right from wrong at the time the offenses, since that test was explicitly discarded in 1957 by 14 V.I.C. § 14(4), which provides that all persons are capable of committing crimes and offenses except those "who are mentally ill and who committed the act charged against them in consequence of such mental illness.” To raise the insanity defense a defendant need only introduce “some evidence” tending to show that he was mentally ill and committed the act charged in consequence of that mental illness, and then the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense becomes an element of the crime, which, like all other elements of the crime, must be proven by the People beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the People offered no medical testimony that the defendant was sane at the time of the murders, but instead sought to discredit a defense experts' testimony that his actions on the day of the murders were driven by delusional beliefs stemming from an undiagnosed “psychotic disorder.” The People presented the lay testimony of the arresting officers concerning defendant's mental state at the time of arrest, but before a non-expert witness may testify to the sanity of the defendant, the party offering the testimony must show a familiarity with the defendant to clearly indicate that the testimony will be of value in determining sanity, and the conclusion must be based on the witness's testimony as to specific instances of behavior or conduct near the time of the offense. Taken together, the People's cross-examination of the defense expert, coupled with the lay testimony of the arresting officers, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the People, was simply insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane at the time of the offenses. The appropriate remedy is to remand with instructions to enter a judgment of not guilty by reason of insanity on all of the convictions except that for crime of unauthorized possession of ammunition, as to which the People concede a failure to the prove essential elements. Therefore, the convictions are reversed and this matter is remanded for the Superior Court to enter a judgment of acquittal on the charge for unauthorized possession of ammunition and a judgment of not guilty by reason of insanity on the remaining charges.