defendant to establish defense in Indiana

2001The federal due process constitutionality of placing the burden on the defendant to establish that defense by a preponderance of the evidence is well settled. 2 Price v. State, 274 Ind. 479, 488 , 412 N.E.2d 788 , 785 (1980); accord Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 798 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952) (upholding Oregon statute that required defendant to prove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt); Rivera v. State, 351 A.2d 561, 562-63 (Del.1976) (upholding federal constitutionality of Delaware statute that required defendant to prove mental illness by a preponderance of the evidence).

1982We considered the constitutionality of this statute in Price v. State, (1980) Ind., 412 N.E.2d 783 and concluded the statute does not impermissibly shift the burden of proof to the defendant on an element of the crime.

2018Thus, "[a] defendant claiming the insanity defense should have prevailed at trial faces a heavy burden because he or she 'is in the position of one appealing from a negative judgment.' " Galloway v. State , 938 N.E.2d 699 , 709 (Ind. 2010) (quoting Thompson v. State , 804 N.E.2d 1146 , 1149 (Ind. 2004) ).

2017Ind. Code § 35-41-4-1 (b) provides that “the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish the defense of insanity (IC 35- 41-3-6) by a preponderance of the evidence.” Ind. Code § 35-41-3-6 (a) provides that “[a] person is not responsible for having engaged in prohibited conduct if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the offense.” Ind. Code § 35-41-3 - 6(b) provides that “mental disease or defect” means “a severely abnormal Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2295| June 20, 2017 Page

2017Ind. Code § 35-41-4-1 (b) provides that “the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish the defense of insanity (IC 35- 41-3-6) by a preponderance of the evidence.” Ind. Code § 35-41-3-6 (a) provides that “[a] person is not responsible for having engaged in prohibited conduct if, as a result of mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the offense.” Ind. Code § 35-41-3 - 6(b) provides that “mental disease or defect” means “a severely abnormal Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1610-CR-2295| June 20, 2017 Page

1993He cites the case of In re Winship (1970), 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1073 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368, 375 .

1993He cites the case of In re Winship (1970), 397 U.S. 358, 364 , 90 S.Ct. 1068, 1073 , 25 L.Ed.2d 368, 375 .

1984It is only where the evidence is without conflict and leads to but one conclusion and the trier of fact has reached an opposite conclusion, that the decision predicated upon such finding will be disturbed as being contrary to law." (citations omitted) Turner v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 1244, 1246 .

1982I.C. 35-41-4-1 [Burns 1979 Repl.] provides: “Standard of proof—Defendant’s burden to establish insanity.—(a) A person may be convicted of an offense only if his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. “(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish the defense of insanity (I.C. 35-41-3-6) by a preponderance of the evidence.” Appellant cites Patterson v. New York, (1977) 432 U.S. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 , and Leland v. Oregon, (1952) 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 , in support of his argument subsection (b) of the statute q

1982I.C. 35-41-4-1 [Burns 1979 Repl.] provides: “Standard of proof—Defendant’s burden to establish insanity.—(a) A person may be convicted of an offense only if his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. “(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish the defense of insanity (I.C. 35-41-3-6) by a preponderance of the evidence.” Appellant cites Patterson v. New York, (1977) 432 U.S. 197 , 97 S.Ct. 2319 , 53 L.Ed.2d 281 , and Leland v. Oregon, (1952) 343 U.S. 790 , 72 S.Ct. 1002 , 96 L.Ed. 1302 , in support of his argument subsection (b) of the statute q

1980The statute clearly states, “the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.” I.C. § 35-41^1-1 [Burns Supp.1978, as amended by Acts 1978, P.L. 145 § 9.] This Court will interpret a statute “so as to give efficient operation to the expressed intent of the legislature.” State v. Bigbee, (1973) 260 Ind. 90, 93 , 292 N.E.2d 609, 611 .

1980The statute clearly states, “the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.” I.C. § 35-41^1-1 [Burns Supp.1978, as amended by Acts 1978, P.L. 145 § 9.] This Court will interpret a statute “so as to give efficient operation to the expressed intent of the legislature.” State v. Bigbee, (1973) 260 Ind. 90, 93 , 292 N.E.2d 609, 611 .