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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT