A trial judge was right to declare a mistrial when a woman was found in a bifurcated trial to have set a fire, but the jury couldn’t determine in the second phase of trial whether she was legally insane, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has ruled.
“The commonwealth’s position that a guilty verdict is warranted because it met its burden of proof at the first trial while the defense was unable to meet its burden of proof at the second trial, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what the first and second juries were called upon to decide,” Judge Mary Jane Bowes said for the court in Commonwealth v. Andre . “The first trial did not determine [Saphira Andre's] criminal responsibility. Where a defendant presents a legal insanity defense in a bifurcated trial, the second jury’s function is solely to determine criminal responsibility.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
