ILNews

COA affirms jury's rejection of insanity defense

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has sided with a jury in rejecting a man’s insanity plea, holding that even when crimes seem horrific and senseless, that does not mean the perpetrator is legally insane.

In James Fernbach v. State of Indiana, No. 69A01-1103-CR-151, James Fernbach claimed the jury erred when it found him mentally ill but guilty of two counts of Class A felony attempted murder. He contended that he should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity and that his 60-year sentence was inappropriate.

The appeals court wrote that Fernbach had a long history of mental illness and a violent past. He had been institutionalized as a teenager, and as a young man, he was arrested several times for acts of domestic violence – such as threatening his girlfriend, with whom he fathered a child, with an axe and attempting to strangle her.

In 2008, Fernbach’s family removed firearms from the household after he fired a shotgun into the woods, claiming that he was shooting at intruders. He also put nails in the home’s gutters, to prevent people from getting onto the roof.

Fernbach’s family attempted to get help for his paranoid behavior, taking him to two different emergency rooms, where he was treated for anxiety and released. His family had him involuntary committed to a hospital, and he was released after 72 hours.

In April 2009, Fernbach – armed with an illegally purchased handgun – shot two people, without provocation, at a gas station. He shot Philip Cruser in the head, leaving him with severe disabilities, and attempted to shoot another man – Benjamin Dick – in the head. Dick was able to grab Fernbach's arm, deflecting the shot, but a bullet went through his hand. Fernbach was attempting to reload his gun when Dick urged him to flee the scene and not shoot him again.

Fernbach sped off, and when he arrived at home, he told his wife he thought he killed someone by accident. But Fernbach initially told police he didn’t remember much about the shootings, and then later told police that he was defending himself against Dick, who he alleged had attacked him.

At trial, two doctors provided testimony about Fernbach’s psychiatric health that could have been favorable to the defense, but, the appeals court held, neither doctor spoke with anyone other than Fernbach, and one doctor admitted that a defendant’s statements alone are among the least reliable sources for a psychiatric examination.

The appeals court wrote that the defendant bears the burden of establishing the insanity defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Citing Indiana Criminal Code 35-41-3-6(a), the appeals court held that in order to meet this burden, the defendant must establish both that he suffers from a mental illness, and that his mental illness rendered him unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the offense.

Although Fernbach did call the police, when questioned by the police, he asked one of the officers whether he could receive the death penalty for his crimes, indicating knowledge that his actions were criminal. His ensuing suicide attempt in jail could also be construed as indicating knowledge of the wrongfulness of his conduct, the court held.

The court also held that while Fernbach’s crimes seem to be without motive, motive is not an element in the crime of attempted murder. “In fact, our supreme court has upheld the rejection of an insanity defense in cases where the crimes appear to have been completely irrational,” the court wrote. The appeals court held that the jury did not err in finding Fernbach guilty, but mentally ill.

The appeals court held that due to the nature of Fernbach’s crimes – attacking two strangers and leaving them with lifelong disabilities – his 60-year sentence was not inappropriate.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT