Following a jury trial, Stanley Barge was found guilty but mentally ill of aggravated battery, carrying a concealed weapon, obstruction of a police officer, and two counts of aggravated assault. Barge appeals, contending: 1 the trial court erred by allowing the State to ask the defendant’s expert witness what effect Barge’s brother’s criminal record would have on his diagnosis of Barge’s mental condition; 2 the verdict was erroneous because Barge proved that he was legally insane; 3 the trial court erred by providing an instruction to the jury as to when using force is not justified; 4 it was error for the trial court to repeat, sua sponte, the definitions of aggravated assault, obstruction of an officer, and aggravated battery in its charge to the jury; 5 it was error for the trial court to refuse to grant a mistrial or give curative instructions relating to testimony about Barge’s competency to stand trial; and 6 trial counsel was ineffective because of her failure to request a mistrial or request curative instructions concerning the testimony related to Barge’s competency to stand trial. We affirm.
On appeal from a criminal conviction, the appellant no longer enjoys the presumption of innocence. The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict under the standard of Jackson v. Virginia.1 See Robinson v. State.2 So viewed, the record shows that, on June 29, 1999, Stanley Barge approached the counter of the Shake and Burger in the food court at Avondale Mall. Cursing, Barge demanded a hamburger and was told that the restaurant was closed. Moments later, Barge returned to the counter, grabbed the owner’s hand, demanded money, and pulled back his jacket to reveal a handgun. The restaurant owner jumped over the counter and began to run. Barge opened fire, hitting the victim twice. Shortly thereafter, Barge pointed his gun at a mall security guard, who fired his own gun and instructed Barge to put his gun down. Barge eventually complied and was restrained by the security guard.