In State v. Overbay, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee reversed Otis Overbay's conviction for first-degree murder. Overbay had shot and killed a deputy who was trying to serve him papers related to a previous criminal trespass charge. Three psychiatrists found Overbay to be schizophrenic and unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. However, the trial court relied on testimony from neighbors in finding Overbay sane. The appellate court found the state had not met its burden under the Graham v. State test to prove Overbay's actions were consistent with sanity given the unanimous medical opinions of insanity. It remanded the case back to the trial court.

1. Insanity Defense Case
State v. Overbay, 874 S.W.2d 645 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993)
By: Abigail Stimpson

2. Procedural History
• Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder in Circuit Court of Sullivan
County.
• Defendant appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals in Knoxville, TN (our
current court).

3. Facts
• Otis Overbay shot and killed a Deputy
who was trying to serve him an order
because of his previous criminal trespass
charge
• Mr. Overbay was receiving the order
because did not show up to receive a
mental evaluation for his criminal trespass
charge.
• According to the officer who arrested him,
Mr. Overbay displayed strange behavior
after shooting the Deputy.
• Mr. Overbay was able to follow basic
instructions but spoke of conspiracies to
hurt him and at times refused to speak.
• There was no expert witness at trial but
Mr. Overbay's sister spoke of his history
of mental illness.
• The Social Security department had filed
that he was "ambulatory borderline
psychotic with a strong paranoid
underlay."

4. Patient Evaluations
Dr. Fakhruddin
• Mr. Overbay was schizophrenic paranoid
with a low IQ
• Many of his actions were explained but some
of his actions inside the jail went
unexplained
• This “deprived the defendant from either
appreciating the wrongfulness of his conduct
or conforming that conduct with the
requirements of law.” (p.649)
Dr. Craddock
• Overbay believed his actions were self-
defense
• He was unable to appreciate the
wrongfulness of the act (first part of the
Graham v. State test)
• Dr. Craddock did not come to a conclusion
regarding the defendant's ability to conform
his behavior (second part of the Graham v.
State test)

5. Issue
Because there was any indication of
insanity the burden of proof shifted to the
state and they must now show that the
defendant's actions were not only
consistent with sanity but also
inconsistent with insanity.

6. Rule of Law
•The state must use the Graham v. State test to disprove insanity:
“(1) that at the time of the offense the defendant was not suffering from a
mental disease or defect, or (2) if he was, that his illness was not such as to
prevent him from knowing the wrongfulness of his conduct and
from conforming his conduct to the requirements of law.”
The state relied upon testimony and half of Dr. Craddock's test to try and
prove the Graham v. State test.

7. “
”
the acts of this defendant on the date of the offense qualified
as consistent with sanity but not inconsistent with
insanity... we have found nothing to suggest any conflict
between their observations and the conclusions of the medical
evaluation team that the defendant was insane.
p.651
COURT'S RULING : Reversed and remanded back to the trial
court.

8. “
”
The state's forensic mental health team was unanimous in determining that
this defendant was insane at the time of the commission of the offense.
I realize from personal experience the frustrations involved and the
emotions this case must have had, but I simply do not think that the lay
testimony was strong enough to meet the state's burden of
proving Overbay's sanity.
p.652
Summer's concurring opinion

9. My Opinion
• I agree with the Court’s verdict here. They took the Graham v. State test and
in my opinion made the test more difficult for the prosecutor. However, in a
situation like this case, the standard they set is appropriate. This is obviously
a small town and a lot of witnesses and different opinions were assessed and
it really isn’t enough to say “oh, such and such says he sometimes acts
sanely.” the state needs to also needs to prove that he isn’t insane.

10. My Opinion
Arguments for the Court's determination
• There were three different psychiatrists who
mentally assessed Mr. Overbay and they all came
to similar conclusions. Also Mr. Overbay had a
previous diagnosis. Just because some of his
neighbors saw actions that they themselves could
rationalize does not mean he was a rational human
being. The deputy who approached Mr. Overbay’s
door was aware of these allegations of insanity
and there is something to be said for the Deputy's
role in this situation and his clear lack of training
with mental illness.
Arguments against the Court's determination
• I think the Court may not have accurately assessed
Mr. Overbay’s intentions. I am sure that Mr.
Overbay was not pleased with the fact that he had
a criminal trespass charge nor that he was going to
have to get a mental evaluation. If Overbay had
any idea why the Deputy was on his property that
may be the motive for shooting him (other than
trespass). That does not mean he understood the
wrongfulness of his actions, but that he was acting
in emotion, with rationale.

11. My Opinion
What factors or testimony would you want the Court to consider if a defendant pleads
insanity in order to find them not guilty?
• I believe the testimony of neighbors, relatives and law enforcement should not be
included in any evaluation of the patient. I believe it should be a psychiatrist paid
for by the judge and any past physicians who have assessed the patient. I think one
of the most important factors is a record of mental illness- family or their own. I
like the Graham v. State standard that was used in this case because it seems to
imply this person isn’t just someone who snapped but someone who cannot thrive
in our society without some serious help.

12. What, if anything, would you do to modify the
statutory definition of the legal defense of
insanity in Tennessee and in the federal system?
I would not say I know enough about mental illness to really feel
sure about any statutory changes, but I think a common fear of the
general public that the individual is manipulating the system. A
defendant currently only needs to be deemed insane by a
psychiatrist after the crime is being committed. I think committing a
criminal act of any kind will have some long-term mental effects
and they may not have a hard time convincing a doctor that they are
messed up. I believe the statute could be modified to include the
history of mental illness as an element the defense must show. I
believe it is harder to dispute a mental illness if when the defendant
claimed this they were receiving no incentive (no jail time) for
seeking help.