Texas lawmakers studying state's insanity defense

Associated Press January 04, 2005
Recent crimes involving horrible facts and fatal results - including the drowning of five children, the fatal beating of 2 with rocks and the discovery of a 6-year-old's body in an oven - have Texas legislators thinking about the state's definition of insanity.

Those accused, convicted or acquitted in some of the headline-grabbing crimes have used or plan to use the insanity defense, prompting a Senate committee to spend recent months reviewing the state's insanity standard and making recommendations on how to improve it.

When the Legislature convenes in January, it's expected to consider the committee's recommendations, which include improving data collection and setting new standards for expert testimony.

"The popularly held conception of the insanity defense has been that of constant overuse and abuse," the Senate Committee on Jurisprudence wrote in its interim report issued this month. "The public pays little attention until a mentally ill person is charged with committing a heinous crime."

In Texas, defendants are presumed sane. To prove insanity, they must convince a jury that they suffered from a severe mental disease or defect and did not know their action was wrong.

According to the committee's report, the insanity defense is used in 1 % of felony cases and is seldom successful. The committee said 26 % of those who claim insanity are deemed insane and acquitted.

Insanity statutes were stiffened by many states and the federal government after John Hinckley's acquittal by reason of insanity for shooting and wounding President Reagan in 1981.

The committee said that the nation "grew impatient" with the insanity defense and that more than 30 states, including Texas, tightened and amended their statutes. 5 states - Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nevada and Utah - abolished the defense, according to the report.

"The idea that many people are saying they are insane and getting away with their crimes is silly," said David Haynes, a lawyer representing Dena Schlosser, charged with capital murder last month for allegedly cutting off the arms of her 10-month-old daughter in Plano. "That just doesn't happen," said Haynes. He said that he may consider an insanity defense in Schlosser's case but that there are a "lot of ifs."

The Senate committee said debate about the insanity standard resurfaced because of the cases of Andrea Yates and Deanna Laney.

In 2002, a Harris County jury rejected Yates' insanity defense and convicted her of 2 capital murder charges for the drowning deaths of 3 of her five children. She was sentenced to life in prison.

In April, an East Texas jury acquitted Laney in the killings of her 2 young sons and injury to a 3rd by beating them in the head with rocks. The jury determined Laney was insane at the time of the incidents. She remains at a state hospital.

All 5 psychiatrists in Laney's case concluded that a severe mental illness caused her to have psychotic delusions that rendered her incapable of knowing right from wrong. In Yates' case, defense and prosecution experts agreed she suffered a severe mental disease but disagreed over whether it kept her from knowing drowning the children was wrong.

"The disparity in verdicts rendered for the similar crimes of Yates and Laney prompted some public confusion concerning the insanity defense," the Jurisprudence Committee, headed by Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, wrote.

The committee says that the "not guilty by reason of insanity" verdict and the legal definition of insanity should remain intact but that the release standards for those who are acquitted should be changed.

Some have suggested changing the verdict to "guilty except for mental illness," but the committee said the verdict would limit juries.

Additionally, the committee wrote, those found "guilty except for mental illness" often don't get the caliber of mental health care a person found "not guilty by reason of insanity" would receive.

Under current law, a person found insane in Texas must be kept in custody up to 30 days. Then, the courts determine whether to release or commit the person to a state hospital. If committed, hearings are held annually to review progress and potential for release.

Jefferson County prosecutor Ed Shettle said a recommendation to tighten release standards pleases him.

Shettle is handling the case of Kenneth Pierott, charged with murder in April for the death of a 6-year-old Beaumont boy whose body was found in the oven at his mother's home.

Pierott's lawyers plan an insanity defense for the 28-year-old, previously found innocent by reason of insanity in the 1996 fatal beating of his sister.

"The system worked as it was designed to work in Kenneth Pierott's case," Shettle said. "Nobody dropped any balls. He just slipped through the system as it was designed, and a closer scrutiny of this guy may have prevented that subsequent offense."

Kevin Keating, an assistant Harris County district attorney, said the law needs to be amended to make sure those found insane stay on medication following release.

"Now, as it is, when somebody gets stabilized on their medication, it is hard to hold on to them," he said.

Laney's lawyer, F.R. "Buck" Files, said a defendant who claims insanity admits the conduct as part of the defense. So when monitoring someone found insane, he isn't sure "what is too intrusive and not intrusive enough."

Though Haynes applauds the legislative efforts, he says lawmakers are taking on an issue with no easy answers.

"There isn't any way to wave a magic wand and say: 'Now, this problem is fixed,'" he said, adding he doesn't know a way "to prevent a person who is insane from doing an insane act."

Source: Associated Press