ÿWPCG! úž‘2Uò\­:Ô"ðîØîƒÆ¢óµ¶!’’ c¼ÖáC‰×’±ðüÌá/™¸±ÚÏ-yÀìÔôp3¹@•z’óŠYy‘j‰»sÆá¦ñ‡É @ä ?p;Í1 x ~ºÏÀ(oš÷é1 ®v&bõÆ$<¡à¯USõÍ…{¯ÆÕ;»1,ák%–Þ‚èfèŒ;¢Ù”ñ`žg`¢ˆâ¡¿øôa0òÚ[8­HÿfÞ>†Mj "Їÿù·Ö×£¬äÔmŽË”È¥E¦›Õp6g¿1Gð§DGKè!ŸìêQìr"õç§K@Ódã3Š´m®c w+gãü[¡‹&3$óƒÛÊE‚ÂïN…Ü•MÇ8¨r©g< üÔfŸ]«l@`l~3Š÷{0§Boð½’#2˹:CñL@æØTÀ·Do@%Ì ¢~ƒè3è—à—®ÌÑa,b¡¯øš€S_ëPĹž#ücrq?û;¤áêùeÉöä)»O+\kßn0mªT(“ïwZÓÙ`¬_`@g7*ÐòÆW5E*‰6¨«7j¯–ñ¶Z°ß$Üj ‚búœ«Iwµáž±öfÉNJÊò yâCÄZWÃã20ªãÛZë÷ý?Á„… %F w@L 0ÜŒ U:h 4¢ ¶ éÅ ® ˆ¶ 0 > 0D^U:¢¢¢ˆÜU:dpžžžžžžžžžžžžžž B D3+++ 0D^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ AO¢Æññ 0D· D/û B*!X mDnoEpqrEstuvÓ€(´`$¡¡Ñ°ÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€‰GXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñ,c½¬AZ‹"Arial RegularuM%ldÔôÔ3|x ßÔ€ XÜüXXXÔÔ€ ´X XÜüÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ XÜüX ´ÔÐ  ÐÌFebruary€19,€1999ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAMÔó ó ~Ô‡ôC”ôXXÔÝ ƒ ˜ÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7À àXXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€court€determined€that€òòJacksonóó€and€òòSparksóó€changed€the€Stateððs€burden€of€proofÐ  Ðon€the€issue€of€insanity.€€The€trial€court€expressed€its€belief€that€holding€the€State€to€this€additionalÏburden€would€be€inherently€unfair€in€that€this€trial€concluded€prior€to€the€release€of€òòJacksonóó€andÐ „| ÐòòSparksóó.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€granted€a€new€trial.€€If,€in€fact,€these€cases€altered€the€StateððsÐ B : Ðburden€of€proof€on€the€issue€of€insanity,€and€thereby€created€a€new€constitutional€rule,€that€ruleÏshould€have€been€applied€retroactively€to€this€case.€€ð ð[N]ewly€announced€state€constitutional€rulesÏwill€be€given€retroactive€application€to€cases€which€are€still€in€the€trial€or€appellate€process€at€theÏtime€such€rules€are€announced,€unless€some€compelling€reason€exists€for€not€so€doing.ðð€ÏòòMeadows€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€748,€754€(Tenn.€1993).€€òòJacksonóó€and€òòSparksóó€do€not€modify€theÐ ø ð ÐStateððs€burden€of€proof€on€this€issue,€and€the€doctrine€of€retroactivity€would,€therefore,€not€apply.€ÏòòInfraóó.(Ð(3Ù$¤¤Ý ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ÜüXXdædæ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ~Ô‡ôÓóôXXÔÝ ƒ ˜ÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7À àXXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€trial€court€determined€that€òòJacksonóó€and€òòSparksóó€changed€the€Stateððs€burden€of€proofÐ  Ðon€the€issue€of€insanity.€€The€trial€court€expressed€its€belief€that€holding€the€State€to€this€additionalÏburden€would€be€inherently€unfair€in€that€this€trial€concluded€prior€to€the€release€of€òòJacksonóó€andÐ „| ÐòòSparksóó.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€granted€a€new€trial.€€If,€in€fact,€these€cases€altered€the€StateððsÐ B : Ðburden€of€proof€on€the€issue€of€insanity,€and€thereby€created€a€new€constitutional€rule,€that€ruleÏshould€have€been€applied€retroactively€to€this€case.€€ð ð[N]ewly€announced€state€constitutional€rulesÏwill€be€given€retroactive€application€to€cases€which€are€still€in€the€trial€or€appellate€process€at€theÏtime€such€rules€are€announced,€unless€some€compelling€reason€exists€for€not€so€doing.ðð€ÏòòMeadows€v.€Stateóó,€849€S.W.2d€748,€754€(Tenn.€1993).€€òòJacksonóó€and€òòSparksóó€do€not€modify€theÐ ø ð ÐStateððs€burden€of€proof€on€this€issue,€and€the€doctrine€of€retroactivity€would,€therefore,€not€apply.€ÏòòInfraóó.,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular fÔ€ô£÷ôXXÔÝ ƒ ÙÿÝÑ@°ÑÒ°ÒÑT@R[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7ÀÜüXXdædæ7ÑÑ @ Ñà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€infant€sustained€two€near€gunshot€wounds€to€the€posterior€of€his€left€chest. d'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ`!ÝѰÑÒ°ÒÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ÜüXXdædÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÝ  Ýñvñ›ñvñÓ ÔþÓò òñvñßr€*<,(j 8` `€€@EÈ ` 8ttxPð  rß›ñvñà@. . ®àIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  Ðà@ÜÜ(®àAT€NASHVILLEˆÌà@LL%®àMARCH€SESSION,€1996ˆÌÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à h àà À à)Ð | t Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àNo.€01C01„9508„CC„00270Ð h` Ðà ` àAppelleeà  àà h àà À à)Ð TL  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àRUTHERFORD€COUNTYÐ @8  Ðvs.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð ,$  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àHon.€J.€S.€Daniel,€JudgeÐ   ÐLAURA€ANN€HUDSON,à h àà À à)Ð ü  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  à(Direct€Appeal„First€Degree€Murder)Ð ðè  Ðà ` àAppellantà  àà h àà À à)Ð ÜÔ  Ðó óÌÌÌòòFor€the€Appellantóó:à  àà h àà À àà  àòòFor€the€Appelleeóó:Ð zr ÐÌò òGerald€L.€Meltonó óà  àà h àò òà À àà  àJohn€Knox€Walkupó óÐ F> ÐDistrict€Public€Defenderà h àà À àà  àAttorney€General€and€ReporterÐ 2* Ð201€West€Main€Street,€Suite€101à À àÐ  ÐMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130à h àà À àà  àò òWilliam€David€Bridgersó óÐ þö Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àAssistant€Attorney€Generalà Ð àà (# àÐ êâ Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à2d€Floor,€Cordell€Hull€BuildingÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àNashville,€TN€37243„0493à x àà Ð àà (# àÐ ‚!z Ðà ` àÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌò òà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBill€Whitselló óÐ 4$,  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àDistrict€Attorney€GeneralÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àRutherford€County€Judicial€œBldg.›Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àMurfreesboro,€TN€€37130Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àÌÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÐ P,H%) ÐÌœñmñAFFIRMEDñmññnñREVERSED€AND€ñnññoññnñMREMAñnññoññpñREMANDED€ñpñ›ÌÌÌÌò òDavid€G.€Hayesó óÐ ´1¬*/ ÐJudgeÐ   2˜+0 ÐÓÓà@+®àòòò òOPINIONóóó óˆÐ  ÐÌà ` àThe€appellant,€Laura€Ann€Hudson,€was€convicted€by€a€Rutherford€County€juryÏof€the€first€degree€murder€of€her€infant€nephew€and€of€arson€to€personal€property.€ÏFollowing€the€juryððs€verdict,€the€appellant€filed€a€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal€andÏa€motion€for€new€trial.€€After€taking€the€matter€under€advisement,€the€trial€courtÏdenied€her€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal,€but€granted€her€motion€for€new€trial€onÏthe€basis€that€the€State€failed€to€carry€its€burden€of€proof€on€the€issue€of€insanity.€€InÏthis€appeal,€the€appellant€contends€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€her€motionÏfor€judgment€of€acquittal.€€We€hold€that€a€new€trial€is€not€the€appropriate€remedyÏwhen€the€trial€court€finds€that€the€State€did€not€meet€its€burden€of€proof;€therefore,Ïthe€trial€court€erred€in€granting€a€new€trial.€€Moreover,€because€we€find€that€the€StateÏof€Tennessee€failed€to€present€sufficient€evidence€to€support€the€juryððs€finding€thatÏthe€appellant€was€not€insane,€the€appellantððs€convictions€for€first€degree€murder€andÏsetting€fire€to€personal€property€are€vacated€and€dismissed.€€This€cause€isÏremanded€to€the€trial€court€for€entry€of€a€judgment€of€ð ðnot€guilty€by€reason€ofÏinsanityðð€and€the€initiation€of€proceedings€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€33„7„303.ÌÌÌà@ff)®àò òBackgroundó óˆÐ 8)0"& ÐÌà ` àOn€December€29,€1991,€the€appellant€took€her€one€month€old€nephew,ÏWilliam€Randall€Youngblood,€into€a€Buddhist€Temple€in€Murfreesboro,€and€whileÏcradling€the€baby€in€her€arms,€shot€and€killed€him.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Because€the€appellant€wasÐ t0l). Ðholding€the€baby€at€the€time,€she€also€wounded€herself.€€The€appellant€thenÏattempted€to€set€her€vehicle€on€fire€while€she€and€the€baby€were€inside.€€WhenÏpolice€officers€arrived€at€the€scene,€the€appellant€was€found€lying€on€the€groundÏbeside€her€vehicle,€clutching€the€child€in€her€arms.€€The€appellantððs€Bible€was€foundÐ ¤7œ06 Ðnearby,€opened€to€the€Book€of€Psalms,€Twenty„third€Chapter.€€€In€the€front€of€theÏBible,€the€following€inscription€was€handwritten:€€ð ðI,€Laura,€will€die,€but€hope€will€liveÏfor€always€for€her€father.€€I€love€my€heavenly€father€and€my€brother€for€always,€and€IÏhope€will€love€heaven€always.€€Hope€will€live€always€for€our€God€almighty.ðð€€When€anÏofficer€approached,€she€confessed€to€the€shooting,€claiming,€ð ðGod€told€me€to.ðð€€ÌÌà ` àSeveral€days€after€the€incident,€the€appellant€gave€the€police€a€differentÏversion€of€events.€€The€appellant€claimed€that€an€anonymous€caller€had€telephonedÏher€and€asked€if€she€could€bring€some€gas€to€the€Buddhist€Temple.€€When€sheÏarrived€at€the€temple,€the€person€shot€her€and€the€baby.€€However,€when€the€policeÏchallenged€this€story,€she€once€again€admitted€shooting€the€child€and€stated€that€theÏchild€was€the€son€of€Satan.€€€€One€officer€testified€at€trial€that€the€appellant€ð ðstatedÏthat€God€told€her€in€1990€that€the€Devilððs€baby€would€be€born€and€that€she€was€to€killÏit.ðð€€The€appellant€also€told€officers€that€God€gave€her€the€baby€in€1990,€and€sheÏgave€the€baby€to€her€sister,€who€subsequently€delivered€him.€€The€appellant€addedÏthat€God€had€instructed€her€to€bring€the€gasoline€to€ð ðburn€the€Temple€downðð€and€toÏð ðbattle€the€Devil.ðð€€She€explained€her€actions€by€the€statement,€ð ðwhen€God€tells€youÏto€do€something€you€do€it.ððÌÌà ` àThe€appellantððs€sister,€Polly€Youngblood,€and€her€boyfriend,€William€Beeman,Ïwere€the€parents€of€the€young€victim.€€Youngblood€testified€that€she€and€her€sisterÏhad€a€close€relationship,€in€which€there€was€no€animosity.€€When€YoungbloodÏbecame€pregnant€with€William,€the€appellant€appeared€very€excited.€€The€appellantÏhelped€care€for€her€sister€when€Youngblood€began€having€problems€with€herÏpregnancy€and€was€present€in€the€delivery€room€when€William€was€born.€€The€proofÏrevealed,€on€cross„examination,€that€the€appellant€was€actually€of€little€help€to€herÏpregnant€sister,€as€the€appellant€slept€on€the€couch€all€day€long,€while€YoungbloodÏwas€forced€to€carry€in€firewood.€€Youngblood€testified€that€the€appellant€was€ð ðcrazyððÏabout€William€and€mothered€the€child€as€if€he€were€her€own.Ð X9P28 Їà ` àOn€the€Friday€prior€to€the€shooting,€the€appellant€left€her€home€in€KentuckyÏand€arrived€at€her€sisterððs€home€for€a€visit.€€Both€Youngblood€and€Beeman€testifiedÏthat€they€noticed€nothing€unusual€about€the€appellant,€except€that€she€repeatedlyÏoffered€to€pay€Youngblood€and€Beeman€to€spend€the€night€at€a€hotel€while€sheÏstayed€with€the€children.€€Youngblood€and€Beeman€declined.ÌÌà ` àThe€next€day,€the€appellant€expressed€an€interest€in€buying€from€her€sister€aÏsmall€pistol€to€give€as€a€gift€to€her€husband.€€Youngblood€and€Beeman€agreed€to€sellÏher€the€gun€for€$150,€even€though€the€gunððs€value€was€much€less.€€That€night,€theÏappellant€purchased€ammunition€for€the€gun€at€K„Mart.€€The€gun€was€used€to€shootÏher€nephew€the€following€day.€€ÌÌà ` àAt€the€time€of€the€incident,€the€appellant€had€recently€undergone€aÏhysterectomy,€and€her€children€had€moved€away.€€The€appellant€had€previouslyÏsuggested€to€her€sister€that€she€and€her€husband€adopt€William.€€The€appellant€hadÏalso€offered€Beeman€money€or€a€motorcycle€to€leave€Youngblood€so€that€she€couldÏlive€with€her€sister€and€the€baby.ÌÌà ` àBoth€Youngblood€and€Beeman€testified€that€the€appellant€had€becomeÏincreasingly€religious€before€the€offenses€occurred.€€However,€neither€regarded€theÏappellantððs€religious€behavior€as€particularly€unusual€or€odd.€€They€testified€that€theÏappellant€appeared€normal€during€her€visit,€with€the€exception€that€she€wasÏdepressed.€€In€fact,€Youngblood,€on€one€occasion,€telephoned€the€appellantððsÏhusband€in€Kentucky€suggesting€that€the€appellant€seek€psychiatric€counseling.ÌÌà ` àBoth€Youngblood€and€Beeman€were€astonished€to€learn€that€the€appellantÏhad€killed€their€child.€€When€Youngblood€confronted€her€sister€after€the€shooting,€theÏappellant€denied€any€involvement€and€claimed€that€someone€else€had€shot€her€and€ÌÐ X9P28 ÐWilliam.€€Youngblood€testified€that€her€sister€has€never€expressed€any€remorse€overÏher€actions.ÌÌà ` àThe€appellantððs€husband,€Joe€Hudson,€testified€on€behalf€of€the€defense€atÏtrial.€€He€stated€that€the€appellant€had€become€very€depressed€in€the€three€monthsÏpreceding€the€shooting,€€He€testified€that€she€slept€during€the€day€and€stayed€awakeÏat€night.€€She€also€seemed€disinterested€in€their€marriage€and€was€away€from€homeÏoften.€€He€also€noted€that,€although€the€appellant€was€typically€a€religious€person,Ïher€interest€in€religion€grew€more€intense€in€the€months€prior€to€the€shooting.€€ÏIndeed,€Hudson€testified€that,€a€few€months€prior€to€the€shooting,€the€appellantÏstated€that€she€was€Godððs€favorite€angel€and€believed€that€she€could€see€the€future.€ÏShe€also€believed€that€she€had€a€ð ðface„to„faceðð€conversation€with€God.€€After€theÏincident,€Hudson€noticed€crosses€and€crucifixes€hanging€in€all€of€the€windows€ofÏtheir€home.€€Hudson€further€testified€that€he€did€not€believe€that€his€wife€knew€theÏdifference€between€right€and€wrong€nor€that€she€knew€what€she€was€doing€at€theÏtime€she€shot€the€child.ÌÌà ` àSeveral€of€the€appellantððs€friends€also€testified€for€the€defense.€€PatriciaÏNeighbors,€a€close€friend€of€the€appellant,€stated€that€the€appellant€had€becomeÏwithdrawn€in€the€months€preceding€the€shooting.€€Amanda€Embry€and€her€olderÏsister,€Crystal,€were€also€friends€of€the€appellant.€€Amanda€testified€that€theÏappellant€appeared€normal€just€days€prior€to€the€incident,€but€noted€that€theÏappellant€advised€her€to€avoid€the€Devil.€€Crystal,€on€the€other€hand,€testified€thatÏthe€appellantððs€behavior€was€unusual€in€the€days€preceding€the€incident.€€SheÏremembered€the€appellant€saying€that€she€could€feel€her€sisterððs€contractions€whenÏshe€was€pregnant€with€William.€€Crystal€also€recalled€an€incident€where€theÏappellant€brought€china,€jewelry€and€other€items€to€Crystalððs€home€and€broke€themÏover€a€garbage€can.€€Further,€the€appellant€asked€Crystal€if€she€would€give€her€soulÏto€fight€the€Devil€if€God€so€asked€her.€€Amanda€and€Crystalððs€mother,€ElizabethÐ X9P28 ÐEmbry,€testified€that€the€appellant€told€her€on€two€separate€occasions€that€she€wasÏbeing€tormented€by€the€€Devil.ÌÌà ` àThree€expert€witnesses€were€called€to€testify€regarding€the€appellantððs€sanityÏat€the€time€of€the€incident.€€All€three€experts€testified€that€the€appellant€was€insaneÏwhen€the€crimes€were€committed.€€All€three€agreed€that€the€appellant€was€sufferingÏfrom€the€diagnosed€mental€illnesses€of€delusional€disorder€and€depression.€€Dr.ÏSamuel€Craddock,€a€clinical€psychologist,€evaluated€the€appellant€during€her€month„¼long€stay€at€the€Middle€Tennessee€Mental€Health€Institution€(MTMHI)€beginning€inÏOctober€of€1992.€€Dr.€Craddock€opined€that,€at€the€time€that€he€met€with€her,€theÏappellant€was€mildly€depressed;€however,€she€was€not€out€of€touch€with€reality€asÏthe€result€of€this€depression.€€According€to€Craddock,€the€appellant€was€sufferingÏfrom€delusional€disorder€at€the€time€of€the€incident.€€Specifically,€the€appellant€wasÏexperiencing€delusions€that€God€directed€her€to€kill€her€nephew.€€Craddock€believedÏthat€the€appellantððs€bizarre,€deviant€thinking€had€existed€for€a€considerable€period€ofÏtime€prior€to€the€shooting.ÌÌà ` àDr.€Craddock€testified€that€the€appellant€failed€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulnessÏof€her€actions€as€a€result€of€the€delusional€disorder.€€However,€Dr.€Craddock€was€ofÏthe€opinion€that€the€appellant€could€conform€her€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€theÏlaw.ÌÌà ` àOn€cross„examination,€the€Stateððs€questions€and€Craddockððs€responsesÏrevealed€that€Craddock€had€been€misinformed€by€various€family€members€andÏfriends€giving€background€information€on€the€appellant.€€Craddock€acknowledgedÏthat,€if€his€evaluation€were€based€on€inaccurate€information,€his€conclusion€mightÏhave€been€erroneous.€€He€recognized€that€the€appellantððs€mother,€as€a€psychiatricÏtechnician€in€the€Veteranððs€Hospital,€would€be€familiar€with€characteristics€whichÏwould€create€an€insanity€defense.€€He€further€agreed€that€there€were€manyÐ X9P28 Ðinconsistencies€in€the€appellantððs€behavior,€an€example€of€which€being€theÏappellantððs€loving€and€nurturing€relationship€with€the€child€she€claimed€to€be€theÏchild€of€the€Devil.€€Additionally,€he€testified€that€the€appellant€was€able€toÏpremeditate€and€deliberate,€and€the€evidence€indicated€that€the€appellant€hadÏplanned€the€murder.ÌÌà ` àDr.€Gillian€Blair,€a€clinical€psychologist,€met€with€the€appellant€on€threeÏseparate€occasions€in€April€and€May€of€1992.€€She€testified€that€the€appellantÏappeared€emotionless€and€depressed€and€suffered€from€major€depressive€disorderÏwith€psychotic€features.€€Dr.€Blair€opined€that,€in€the€circumstances€of€WilliamððsÏdeath,€the€appellant€was€unable€to€conform€her€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€theÏlaw.€€However,€she€stated€that€the€appellant€could€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€ofÏkilling€someone€ð ðin€the€abstract.ððÌÌà ` àWhen€confronted€with€the€disparity€in€her€opinion€and€that€of€Dr.€Craddock,ÏBlair€testified€that€the€appellantððs€ability€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€herÏactions€and€to€conform€her€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law€ð ðkind€of€becomeÏintertwined€in€that€.€.€.€her€appreciation€of€what€was€right€and€what€was€wrong€wasÏinfluenced€by€her€delusional€system€and€the€command€that€she€believed€she€hadÏfrom€God.ðð€€However,€she€acknowledged€that,€in€her€opinion,€the€appellant€couldÏappreciate€that€it€was€wrong€to€kill€someone.€€Furthermore,€she€was€surprised€toÏlearn€that€Dr.€Craddock€believed€that€the€appellant€had€the€ability€to€conform€herÏconduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.ÌÌà ` àOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Blair€testified€that€she€only€interviewed€theÏappellant€and€the€appellantððs€father€for€background€information.€€Although€Dr.€BlairÏtestified€that€the€appellant€was€withdrawn€and€introverted€with€distant€andÏð ðconflictualðð€family€relationships,€she€was€unaware€that€friends€and€familyÏconsidered€the€appellant€to€be€friendly€and€outgoing€with€close€family€ties.Ð X9P28 ÐFurthermore,€in€making€her€assessment€of€the€appellantððs€mental€condition,€Dr.€BlairÏdid€not€consider€that€the€appellant€was€considered€ð ðbossyðð€and€ð ðsocialðð€in€herÏinteractions€with€other€patients€at€MTMHI.€€Additionally,€Dr.€Blair€thought€it€wasÏpossible€that€the€appellant,€as€a€dependent€personality,€would€have€feelings€ofÏresentment€toward€those€close€to€her,€including€her€sister.ÌÌà ` àDr.€Ahmad€Farooque,€a€staff€psychiatrist€at€MTMHI,€was€the€third€expertÏcalled€by€the€defense.€€Dr.€Farooque€evaluated€the€appellant€as€part€of€a€team€withÏDr.€Craddock.€€During€her€stay€at€MTMHI,€Dr.€Farooque€saw€the€appellant€seven€orÏeight€times.€€He€concluded€that€the€appellant€suffered€from€a€delusional€disorder.€ÏHe€further€opined€that,€as€a€result€of€this€disorder,€the€appellant€could€not€appreciateÏthe€wrongfulness€of€her€conduct€and€could€not€conform€her€conduct€to€theÏrequirements€of€the€law.ÌÌà ` àDr.€Farooque€admitted€on€cross„examination€that€his€report€failed€to€expressÏhis€opinion€that€the€appellant€could€not€conform€her€conduct€to€the€requirements€ofÏthe€law.€€Although€his€report€contained€the€opinion€that€the€appellant€failed€toÏappreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€her€conduct€only,€Dr.€Farooque€insisted€that€he€hadÏfurnished€a€complete€report€to€the€court.€€When€questioned€as€to€why€he€failed€toÏinclude€in€his€report€that€the€appellant€was€unable€to€conform€her€conduct€to€theÏrequirements€of€the€law,€Dr.€Farooque€responded€that€he€did€not€have€time€toÏcommunicate€this€fact€in€his€opinion.ÌÌà ` àThe€State€offered€no€proof€in€rebuttal.ÌÌà ` àAt€the€conclusion€of€the€proof,€the€jury€rejected€the€insanity€defense€andÏreturned€guilty€verdicts€for€one€count€of€premeditated€first€degree€murder€and€oneÏcount€of€setting€fire€to€personal€property.ÌÐ X9P28 Ðà ` àFollowing€the€juryððs€verdict,€the€appellant€filed€a€motion€for€judgment€ofÏacquittal€alleging€that€the€State€failed€to€carry€its€burden€of€proof€on€the€question€ofÏthe€appellantððs€insanity.€€The€appellant€simultaneously€moved€for€a€new€trial.€ÏAlthough€these€motions€were€heard€in€July€1993,€the€trial€court€held€them€underÏadvisement€until€April€24,€1995.€€In€the€interim,€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏdecided€the€cases€of€òòState€v.€Jacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€436€(Tenn.€1994)€and€òòState€v.Ð ü  ÐSparksóó,€891€S.W.2d€607€(Tenn.€1995).€€Both€cases€bear€on€the€nature€of€the€proofÐ ÐÈ  Ðrequired€to€rebut€the€defense€of€insanity.€€Although€these€cases€do€not€alter€the€well„¼settled€principle€that€the€State€may€rebut€a€claim€of€legal€insanity€solely€through€layÏtestimony,€the€opinions€hold€that€such€lay€testimony€ð ðmust€be€consistent€with€sanityÏand€inconsistent€with€insanity.ðð€€òòSparksóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€616.Ð ø ÐÌà ` àOn€April€24,€1995,€the€trial€court€denied€the€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal,Ïbut€granted€the€appellant€a€new€trial.€€The€trial€court€concluded€that€:ÌÓÓà8 ` à[òòJacksonóó€and€òòSparksóó]€alter[]€the€capacity€of€the€State€to€meet€itsÐ 0 ( Ðburden€when€utilizing€exclusively€lay€testimony.€€It€appears€from€theseÏmost€recent€decisions€that€when€expert€testimony€supports€theÏdefense€of€insanity,€that€lay€opinion€of€witnesses€must€be€supported€byÏadequate€foundation€and€the€evidence€offered€by€the€lay€witness€mustÏbe€consistent€with€sanity€and€not€[sic]€inconsistent€with€insanity.€€ThisÏstandard€renders€it€almost€impossible€for€the€State€to€succeed€withoutÏthe€assistance€of€an€expert€when€the€mental€disease€or€defect€ofÏparanoid€schizophrenia€is€advanced€because€such€persons€oftenÏdemonstrate€conduct€or€action€that€would€appear€to€be€consistent€withÏsanity€when€they€are€in€effect€not€inconsistent€with€insanity€as€viewedÏby€the€professional€experts€in€the€field.Ð ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓAt€the€hearing€on€the€motion,€the€trial€court€stated€that€the€State€lacked€proof€ð ðtoÏcarry€out€[its]€burden€of€proof€on€the€issue€of€sanity.ðð€€In€its€order,€the€trial€courtÏconcluded€that€it€must€grant€a€new€trial€since€ð ðthis€new€standard€was€not€addressedÏby€the€State€in€the€trial€of€this€matter€or€met.ððÌÌà ` àThe€appellant€now€brings€this€appeal€from€the€denial€of€the€motion€forÏjudgment€of€acquittal€and€the€grant€of€a€new€trial€in€lieu€thereof.Ìò òÌÐ J:B39 Їà@‘‘&®àProcedural€Erroró óˆÐ  ÐÌà ` àAlthough€the€trial€court€determined€that€the€State€had€not€carried€its€burdenÏon€the€issue€of€sanity,€it€denied€the€appellantððs€motion€for€judgment€of€acquittal.€ÏHowever,€the€trial€court€granted€the€appellantððs€motion€for€a€new€trial€ð ðto€afford€theÏState€an€opportunity€to€prove€the€issue€of€sanity€under€the€standards€nowÏenunciated€by€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Courtðð€in€òòJacksonóó€and€òòSparksóó.€€Due€to€theÐ ÜÔ  Ðtrial€courtððs€ruling,€this€court€deems€it€necessary€to€further€clarify€the€distinctionÏbetween€sufficiency€of€the€evidence€and€the€weight€of€the€evidence.ÌÌà ` àIn€òòTibbs€v.€Floridaóó,€457€U.S.€31,€102€S.Ct.€2211€(1982),€the€United€StatesÐ   ÐSupreme€Court€discussed€the€€distinction€between€evidentiary€weight€andÏevidentiary€sufficiency.€€The€Court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 ` àa€conviction€rests€upon€insufficient€evidence€when,€after€viewing€theÏevidence€in€the€light€most€favorable€to€the€prosecution,€no€rationalÏfactfinder€could€have€found€the€defendant€guilty€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt.€€A€reversal€based€on€the€weight€of€the€evidence,€on€the€otherÏhand,€draws€the€appellate€court€into€questions€of€credibility.€€TheÏð ðweight€of€the€evidenceðð€refers€to€ð ða€determination€[by]€the€trier€of€factÏthat€a€greater€amount€of€credible€evidence€supports€one€side€of€anÏissue€or€cause€than€the€other.ððÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓ457€U.S.€at€37„38,€102€S.Ct.€at€2216.€€A€finding€of€legal€insufficiency€ð ðmeans€thatÏthe€governmentððs€case€was€so€lacking€that€it€should€not€have€even€been€òòsubmittedóóÐ R(J!% Ðto€the€jury.ðð€€òòBurks€v.€United€Statesóó,€437€U.S.€1,€16,€98€S.Ct.€2141,€2150€(1978)Ð *#' Ð(emphasis€in€original).€€However,ÌÓÓà8 ` à[€a]n€inquiry€into€the€òòweightóó€of€the€evidence€is€entirely€different.€€TheÐ ¶-®&+ Ðtrial€judge€does€not€have€to€view€the€evidence€in€the€light€mostÏfavorable€to€the€prosecution;€he€may€weigh€the€evidence€himself€as€ifÏhe€were€a€juror€and€determine€for€himself€the€credibility€of€theÏwitnesses€and€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€As€the€EighthÏCircuit€stated€in€òòUnited€States€v.€Lincolnóó,€630€F.2d€1313€(8th€Cir.Ð 42,+0 Ð1980),€even€if€the€trial€judge€concludes€that€ð ðDespite€the€abstractÏsufficiency€of€the€evidence€to€sustain€the€verdict,€[that]€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€sufficiently€heavily€against€the€verdict€that€a€seriousÏmiscarriage€of€justice€may€have€occurred,€[he]€may€set€aside€theÏverdict,€grant€a€new€trial,€and€submit€the€issues€for€determination€byÏanother€jury.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€1319.И706` ü!` ü! ÐÌÓÓòòÐ d9\28 М‡ÌState›€v.€Johnsonóó,€692€S.W.2d€412,€415€(Tenn.€1985)€(Drowota,€J.,€dissenting)Ð ÔÌ Ð(emphasis€in€original).ÌÌà ` àUnder€principles€of€double€jeopardy,€the€State€is€precluded€from€retrying€aÏdefendant€where€the€trial€court€found€insufficient€evidence€to€sustain€the€convictionÏand€entered€a€judgment€of€acquittal.€€òòBurks€v.€United€Statesóó,€437€U.S.€at€18,€98Ð ÐÈ  ÐS.Ct.€at€2150„51.€€However,€if€the€trial€court€finds€that€the€weight€of€the€evidenceÏfalls€in€favor€of€the€defendant,€he€or€she€may€be€retried€without€violating€doubleÏjeopardy.€€òòTibbs€v.€Floridaóó,€457€U.S.€at€44,€102€S.Ct.€at€2219.Ð 4, ÐÌà ` àWhen€a€trial€court€determines€that€the€evidence€is€legally€insufficient€toÏsustain€a€conviction,€the€court€ð ðshall€order€the€entry€of€judgment€of€acquittal.ðð€€Tenn.ÏR.€Crim.€P.€29(a).€€However,€if€the€trial€court€merely€ð ðdisagrees€with€the€jury€aboutÏthe€weight€of€the€evidence,ðð€the€court€is€permitted€to€grant€a€new€trial€on€that€basis.€ÏTenn.€R.€Crim.€P.€33(f).€€From€this€courtððs€review€of€the€record,€it€is€clear€that€the€trialÏcourt€found€that€the€State€failed€to€carry€its€burden€of€proof€on€the€issue€of€œsanityñgñ,ñgñ›Ïœandñhñ,ñhñ›€therefore,€determined€that€the€evidence€was€legally€insufficient€to€sustain€theÏappellantððs€conviction.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€a€new€trial.€€It€is€nowÏthe€duty€of€this€court€to€review€the€evidence€to€ascertain€whether€the€evidence€is,Ïindeed,€insufficient€to€support€a€finding€of€sanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.œñiñ׃ ×ñiññiñ׃×ñiñÝ ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  כРø*ð#( ÐÌÌÐ \0T). Їà@66*®àò òInsanityó óˆÐ  ÐÌà ` àThe€question€before€this€court€is€whether€the€State€sufficiently€established,Ïbeyond€a€reasonable€doubt,€that€the€appellant€was€legally€sane€at€the€time€theÏoffenses€were€committed.€€Insanity€at€the€time€an€offense€is€committed€is€anÏabsolute€defense€to€a€crime.€€Indeed,€ð ð[i]nsanity€is€a€defense€to€prosecution€if,€at€theÏtime€of€such€conduct,€as€a€result€of€mental€disease€or€defect,€the€person€lackedÏsubstantial€capacity€either€to€appreciate€the€wrongfulness€of€the€personððs€conduct€orÏto€conform€that€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€39„11„¼501(a)(1991)€(amended€1995);€òòGraham€v.€Stateóó,€547€S.W.2d€531,€543„544€(Tenn.Ð @8 Ð1977).€€It€is€clear€from€the€statutory€language€that€proof€of€òòeitheróó€the€ð ðwrongfulnessððÐ   Ðprong€òòoróó€the€ð ðvolitionalðð€prong€resulting€from€a€œmental›€disease€or€defect€is€sufficientÐ ØÐ Ðto€support€an€insanity€defense.€€òòId.óóÐ ¤œ ÐÌà ` àThe€sanity€of€the€accused€is€presumed.€€òòState€v.€Overbayóó,€874€S.W.2d€645,Ð < 4 Ð650€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1993);€òòBrooks€v.€Stateóó,€489€S.W.2d€70,€72€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.Ð " Ð1972).€€Thus,€the€accused€bears€the€initial€burden€of€proof.€€If€the€evidence€raises€aÏreasonable€doubt€as€to€the€sanity€of€the€defendant,€the€State€assumes€the€burden€ofÏproving€the€defendantððs€sanity€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€òòState€v.€Sparksóó,€891Ð l'd $ ÐS.W.2d€607,€615€(Tenn.€1995).€€Once€the€burden€has€shifted€to€the€State,€sanityÏbecomes€an€essential€element€of€the€crime.€€òòSparksóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€616€(citationsÐ +ü#( Ðomitted).€€There€is€no€dispute€that€the€appellant€made€an€adequate€prima€facieÏshowing€of€insanity.€€Therefore,€we€proceed€directly€to€the€sufficiency€of€the€StateððsÏproof.ÌÌà ` àAgain,€in€order€to€prove€sanity,€the€State€must€prove€either€:ÌÓÓà8 ` à(1)€the€defendant€was€not€suffering€from€a€mental€illness€at€the€time€ofÏthe€offense;€orÐ ` ü!` ü! ÐÌà8 ` à(2)€€the€illness€did€not€prevent€the€defendant€from€knowing€theÏwrongfulness€of€his€act€and€did€not€render€the€defendant€substantiallyÏincapable€of€conforming€his€conduct€to€the€requirements€of€the€law.ÐJ:B39` ü!` ü! ЇÓÓòòState€v.€Peevyhouseóó,€No.€01C01„9409„CC„00307€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€at€Nashville,Ð  ÐMar.€22,€1996),€òòperm.€to€appeal€dismissedóó,€(Tenn.€Sept.€9,€1996)€(citingòò€Jacksonóó,Ð ÔÌ Ð890€S.W.2d€at€440;€òòGrahamóó,€547€S.W.2d€at€544).€€The€State€may€show€the€sanityÐ   ˜ Ðof€the€defendant€ð ðthrough€the€use€of€expert€testimony,€lay€testimony,€or€by€showingÏthat€the€defendantððs€behavior€prior€to,€during,€or€after€the€commission€of€the€crimeÏwas€consistent€with€sanity€and€inconsistent€with€insanity.ðð€€òòSparksóó,€891€S.W.2d€atÐ ü  Ð616;€€òòPeevyhouseóó,€No.€01C01„9409„CC„00307€(citing€òòEdwards€v.€Stateóó,€540Ð ÐÈ  ÐS.W.2d€641,€646€(Tenn.€1976),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€492€U.S.€1061,€97€S.Ct.€784€(1977)).€Ð œ”  ÐThus,€ð ðthe€jury€is€allowed€to€consider€both€lay€and€expert€testimony€as€evidence,Ïand€it€may€discount€expert€testimony€which€it€finds€to€be€in€conflict€with€the€facts€ofÏthe€case.ðð€€òòSparksóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€616;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòJacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€at€440.Ð ø ÐÌà ` àAgain,€the€appellantððs€proof€consisted€of€three€mental€health€experts€andÏnumerous€lay€witnesses.€€All€three€mental€health€experts€testified€that€the€appellantÏwas€legally€insane.€€Even€though€two€of€the€experts€disagreed€as€to€which€prong€ofÏthe€legal€insanity€test€applied€to€the€appellant,€Dr.€Blair€noted€that,€the€nature€of€theÏappellantððs€mental€illness,€òòi.e.óó,€that€God€was€directing€her€to€perform€certain€acts,Ð È#À  Ðwould€confuse€the€two€prongs€of€appreciating€the€wrongfulness€of€her€act€andÏconforming€her€conduct.€€òòSee,€e.g.òòóó,€€òòóóJacksonóó,€890€S.W.2d€at€441.€€€Additionally,€layÐ d'\ $ Ðwitnesses€presented€by€the€defense€related€numerous€incidents€of€the€appellantððsÏabnormal€behavior.€ÌÌà ` àThe€State€presented€no€evidence€to€rebut€the€defense€proof€regardingÏinsanity.€€Rather,€the€State€relied€œupon›€its€cross„examination€of€the€expertÏwitnesses,€which€œalthoughñlññdñ,ñdññlññlñ›€ñlññlñperhapsñlññiñ›ñiññlññeñ,ñeññlñ›€tactically€œeffective€from€a€jurorððs€perspectiveñiñ›ñiññfñ,ñfñ›€failed€toÏœcause›€the€experts€to€œretreat›€from€their€initial€diagnoses.€€The€State€also€relied€uponÏthe€testimony€of€lay€witnesses€presented€in€their€case„in„chief.€However,€theÏtestimony€of€the€Stateððs€lay€witnesses€is€also€œsupportive›€of€the€appellantððs€bizarreÏbehavior,€òòe.g.óó,€act€of€laying€a€crucifix€on€her€pregnant€sisterððs€stomach€ñiñœñiñ€œconfirming›Ð `9X28 Ðthat€the€child€was€the€son€of€Satan,€the€appellantððs€conversation€with€the€Devil€at€aÏbar,€her€staying€up€all€night€to€color€and€sleeping€throughout€the€day,€her€fascinationÏwith€becoming€the€queen€of€a€motorcycle€club€and€her€face„to„face€conversationÏwith€God.€€œÌ›Ìà ` àRegardless€of€this€bizarre€behavior,€lay€testimony€of€a€defendantððs€normalÏbehavior,€in€and€of€itself,€is€insufficient€to€rebut€the€testimony€of€expert€witnessesÏwhen€the€mental€illness€or€defect€involved€is€of€such€a€nature€that€the€appellantÏwould€behave€normally€and€would€not€exhibit€any€signs€of€mental€illness€unlessÏspecifically€questioned€as€to€that€defect.€€òòSeeóó€€òòSparksóó,€891€S.W.2d€at€617;€òòJacksonóó,Ð 4, Ð890€S.W.2d€at€441.€€In€the€present€case,€for€example,€for€a€lay€witness€to€perceiveÏthe€appellantððs€mental€illness,€that€witness€would€have€to€specifically€question€theÏappellant€as€to€whether€she€spoke€with€God.€€Neither€Beeman€nor€Youngblood€everÏquestioned€the€appellant€regarding€her€relationship€with€God.€€Thus,€although€theÏStateððs€proof€was,€to€a€large€extent,€consistent€with€sanity,€we€cannot€conclude€thatÏit€was€entirely€inconsistent€with€insanity.ÌÌà ` àWe€conclude€that€the€State€has€failed€to€prove€that€the€appellant€was€capableÏof€appreciating€the€wrongfulness€of€her€conduct€and€conforming€her€conduct€to€theÏrequirements€of€the€law.€€As€a€consequence,€the€evidence€was€not€sufficient€toÏwarrant€any€rational€finder€of€fact€to€find€the€existence€of€each€of€the€elements€ofÏfirst€degree€murder€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€Accordingly,€the€conviction€enteredÏby€the€jury€is€reversed€and€vacated.€€This€cause€is€remanded€for€entry€of€a€judgmentÏof€ð ðnot€guilty€by€reason€of€insanityðð€and€the€initiation€of€proceedings€under€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€33„7„303.ÌÐ  ô3ì,2 ÐÌÓÓÌÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à____________________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àDAVID€G.€HAYES,€JudgeÌÌÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌœ______________________________ñuñ_ñuñ›ÌJERRY€L.€SMITH,€JudgeÌÌÌœ______________________________ñtñ_ñtñ›ÌWILLIAM€S.€RUSSELL,€œñrññqñsPECñqññrññsñSpecial€ñsñJudge›