ILNews

Judges uphold jury's rejection of insanity defense

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman convicted of murdering her young son has lost her appeal, in which she claimed the jury didn’t have sufficient evidence to reject her insanity defense.

In Latisha Lawson v. State of Indiana, No. 02A03-1107-CR-350, Latisha Lawson appealed her convictions of murder, Class C felony neglect of a dependent, and Class D felonies neglect of a dependent and battery. The convictions stem from an incident where she forced her two children to drink mixtures of oil and vinegar to exercise demons. In order to get her toddler son to drink the mixture, Lawson held her hand over his mouth, which suffocated J.K.

She kept J.K.’s body in a bin and told her daughter not to tell anyone what had happened. She told people who asked where J.K. was that he was living with another relative or had been adopted. Eventually, police learned about J.K.’s death and found his body inside the plastic tub where Lawson was living.

Lawson wanted to rely on the insanity defense, so she was examined by a psychologist and a psychiatrist. The psychologist believed she was sane at the time of the incident; the psychiatrist felt she wasn’t sane at the time. The jury was instructed that it could find Lawson not guilty, not responsibly by reason of insanity, guilty, or guilty but mentally ill. The jury found her guilty and she was sentenced to 61 years.

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected Lawson’s claim that the psychologist’s testimony rendered an opinion lacking in probative value so only the psychiatrist’s opinion should have been considered. This case differs from Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 708 (Ind. 2010), in which the expert in that case originally testified that he thought the defendant was sane but later said on cross-examination that he was unable to offer a definite opinion on sanity. In the instant case, the psychologist never changed his opinion that Lawson was sane.

In addition, independent lay witness testimony corroborated the psychologist’s opinion she was sane.

“Lawson’s behavior in this case admittedly was highly bizarre; her actions concerning the ‘exorcism’ and retention of J.K.’s body thereafter were confirmed by three independent eyewitnesses. Still, as we recently noted, our supreme court has affirmed the rejection of an insanity defense even ‘where the crimes appear to have been completely irrational,’” wrote Judge Michael Barnes.

 

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