T.P.I. -- CRIM. 40.16(b)
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: INSANITY
(FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 1995)
The defendant has raised the defense that [he] [she] was insane at the time of the commission of the offense.
A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the person, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of such person's acts. A mental disease or defect by itself is not a defense.1 The terms "mental disease or defect" do not include any abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise anti-social behavior.2
The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity. For you to return a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, the defendant must prove both of the following things by clear and convincing evidence:
(1) [he] [she] had a severe mental disease or defect at the time that the
acts constituting the crime were committed;
and
(2) that as a result of this severe mental disease or defect, [he] [she] was
not able to understand what [he] [she] was doing, or to understand
that what [he] [she] was doing was wrong.3
"Clear and convincing evidence" means evidence in which there is no serious or substantial doubt about the correctness of the conclusions drawn from the evidence.4
[Lay witnesses have testified with respect to their observations of defendant's appearance, behavior, speech, and actions. Such persons are permitted to testify as to their own observations and other facts known to them. Lay witnesses may express an opinion based upon those observations and facts known to them. In weighing the testimony of such lay witnesses, you may consider: the circumstances of each witness, his or her opportunity to observe the defendant and to know the facts to which he or she has testified, his or her willingness and capacity to expound freely as to his or her observations and knowledge, the basis for his or her opinion and conclusions, and the nearness or remoteness of his or her observations of the defendant in point of time to the commission of the offense charged.5
You may also consider whether the witness observed extraordinary or bizarre acts performed by the defendant. In evaluating such testimony, you should take into account the extent of the witness' observation of the defendant and the nature and length of time of the witness' contact with the defendant. You should bear in mind that an untrained person may not be readily able to detect mental disease or defect. Also, the failure of a lay witness to observe abnormal acts by the defendant may be significant only if the witness had prolonged and intimate contact with the defendant.6]
Whether the defendant was insane as defined in these instructions is a question for you alone to decide.7
In determining the defendant's mental status at the time of the alleged crime, the jury is entitled to look to evidence of [his] [her] actions and words before, at, and immediately after the commission of the alleged crime.8
If you find the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity, the form of your verdict shall be: "We find the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity."9
A verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity shall result in the automatic detention of the defendant in a mental hospital or treatment center, pending further medical and legal findings.10
FOOTNOTES
1. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-501(a).
2. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-501(b).
3. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-501(a).
4. Hodges v. S.C. Toof & Co., 833 S.W.2d 896 (Tenn. 1992).
5. United States v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
6. Id.
7. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-501(c). Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-501(c) prohibits
an expert from testifying on whether the defendant was or was not insane at
the time of the commission of the of the acts constituting the offense.
8. Mullendore v. State, 183 Tenn. 53, 191 S.W.2d 149 (1945); Humphreys v.
State, 531 S.W. 2d 127 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1975).
9. Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-18-117.
10. Tenn. Code Ann. § 33-7-303.
COMMENTS
1. This instruction should be used for crimes committed on or after July 1, 1995. See Public Acts of 1995, Chapter 494.
2. The issue of the existence of the affirmative defense of insanity may not be submitted to the jury unless it is fairly raised by the proof and notice has been provided. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-204(c)(1) provides that written notice of an affirmative defense shall be made to the district attorney no later than ten (10) days before trial. However, Rule 12.2 of Tenn. Rules Crim. Proc. provides that notice of intent to rely upon the defense of insanity shall be made within the time provided for filing pretrial motions or at such time as the court may direct.