Lori Barcroft, Appellant (defendant) v. State of Indiana, Appellee (plaintiff)

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed Barcroft’s guilty-but-mentally-ill conviction, holding that the trial court could reject unanimous expert opinions that she was legally insane and infer sanity from probative demeanor evidence, weaknesses in the expert analyses, and the absence of a well-documented history of acute mental illness. The court emphasized that expert testimony is advisory and that the factfinder may consider all relevant evidence when determining whether the defendant appreciated the wrongfulness of her conduct. Justice Goff, joined by Justice Slaughter, dissented and would have reversed because the demeanor evidence was neutral or consistent with Barcroft’s delusions and did not conflict with the unanimous expert opinions.