Opinion
No. 174S10.
Filed February 18, 1975.
1. CRIMINAL LAW — Insanity. — The question of insanity is a question of fact, not unlike other factual issues, which is to be decided by the trier of fact. p. 659.
2. CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal — Standard of Review. — Whenever a factual question is appealed, the Supreme Court neither weighs the evidence nor judges the credibility of witnesses. The Court looks to the evidence most favorable to the State and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom and, when there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the decision of the trier of fact, the decision will be affirmed. p. 659.
3. CRIMINAL LAW — Insanity. — Lay testimony on the issue of insanity is proper. p. 660.
4. CRIMINAL LAW — Insanity. — Where two psychiatrists testified that appellant was not legally insane at the time of the robbery and the proprietor of the tavern that was robbed described appellant's behavior during the robbery, such testimony sustained the finding that appellant was legally responsible for the armed robbery which he perpetrated. p. 660.
Appeal from a conviction of armed robbery.
From the Marion Criminal Court, Division Three, Harold Kohlmeyer, Judge.
Affirmed.
Mark W. Shaw, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General, Robert F. Colker, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
This appeal from a conviction, after trial by jury, on a charge of Armed Robbery presents but one question: Was there sufficient evidence to warrant the jury finding that beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was sane at the time he committed the robbery?
We have recently reiterated that the question of insanity is a question of fact not unlike other factual issues, which are to be decided by the trier of fact. Whenever such a factual [1, 2] question is appealed, this Court does not weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. We look to the evidence on the issue most favorable to the state and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. When there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the decision of the trier of fact, the decision will be affirmed. Dragon v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 394, 316 N.E.2d 827; Moore v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 154, 293 N.E.2d 28; Majors v. State (1974), Ind. App., 310 N.E.2d 283.
The jury heard two psychiatrists testify that the defendant, in their opinion, was not legally insane at the time of the commission of the crime. The jury also heard the [3, 4] proprietor of the robbed tavern describe defendant's behavior during the robbery. Lay testimony on the issue of insanity is proper. Smith v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 187, 285 N.E.2d 275; Hill v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 601, 251 N.E.2d 429, Fitch v. State (1974), Ind. App., 313 N.E.2d 548. We can not disturb the jury's legitimate finding that defendant was legally responsible for armed robbery which he perpetrated.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
All justices concur.
NOTE. — Reported at 323 N.E.2d 227.