State v. Wilson,

700 A.2d 633 (1997)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D and the victim, Jack Peters, were acquainted through the victim's son, Dirk Peters, with whom D had attended high school. In early 1993, D began to exhibit symptoms of a mental disorder manifested by a delusional belief that Dirk, assisted by the victim, systematically was destroying the D's life. D believed that, in 1981, Dirk had poisoned him with methamphetamine and had hypnotized him in order to obtain control of his thoughts. D believed that Dirk had been acting with the approval of the victim, who was the mastermind of a large organization bent on controlling the minds of others. D believed that Dirk and the victim were responsible for D's loss of employment, sexual inadequacy, physical weakness, and other incapacities, as well as the deaths of D's mother and several family dogs. D blamed the victim and Dirk for the breakup of D's relationship with a former girlfriend. In February 1993, D began contacting law enforcement authorities to inform them of the conspiracy by the victim and Dirk to destroy his life and the lives of others. He claimed that Dirk was continuing to drug and brainwash people and that Dirk should be stopped. He blamed the victim and Dirk for his own drug involvement and claimed that they were ruining other people's lives as well. In May and June 1993, D repeatedly called the police, requesting their assistance in combating the mind control conspiracy by the victim and Dirk. The police informed him that it was impossible to investigate his allegations. On August 5, 1993, D went to see the victim at his home in the city of Greenwich. He quarreled with the victim and then shot him numerous times with a semiautomatic revolver that he had purchased two days earlier from a gun dealer in the city of New Haven. D then entered the Greenwich police headquarters and stated that he had shot the victim because he 'had to do it.' D gave a sworn statement to the police that: (1) his life had been ruined by Dirk, who had drugged, hypnotized and brainwashed him; (2) the victim had assisted Dirk in these activities; (3) Dirk and the victim were responsible for D's schizophrenia; (4) the conduct of Dirk and the victim required 'drastic action' and 'drastic retribution'; and (5) D had shot the victim repeatedly at the victim's home earlier that day. D raised his mental illness as an affirmative defense under § 53a-13. The jury rejected D's claim of insanity and convicted him of murder. The trial court rendered judgment sentencing the defendant to sixty years imprisonment. D appealed. D was refused a jury instruction that the accused was not guilty of his crime if because of mental illness or defect, he believed that he was morally justified in his conduct even though he may appreciate that his act was criminal. D appealed.