Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 02-07-2021

Case Style:

Stephanie Bryant v. State of Indiana

Case Number: 20A-CR-00481

Judge: Robert R. Altice, Jr.

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Plaintiff's Attorney: Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana

Jodi Kathryn Stein
Deputy Attorney General

Defendant's Attorney:


Free National Lawyer Directory


OR


Just Call 855-853-4800 for Free Help Finding a Lawyer Help You.



Description:

Indianapolis, IN - Criminal defense attorney represented Stephanie Bryant with arguing that the jury erred in rejecting her insanity defense.



[3] Stella and Arthur Morgan adopted Bryant when she was six or seven years old
after both of Bryant’s parents died from health conditions. Stella was the sister
of Bryant’s father and therefore Bryant’s biological aunt. Stella kept an orderly
and immaculate home where “[e]verything had a place.” Transcript Vol. 3 at
188. In raising Bryant, Stella was very strict. Stella and Bryant both had
tempers and would get into some “pretty hefty arguments.” Id. at 184. Even
after Bryant became an adult, Stella remained strict with her and treated her
“like a child.” Id.
[4] The Morgans’ other adopted daughter, Frances, was in her late twenties and
married with two children of her own when Bryant was adopted. Frances’s
daughter, Julie, is two years younger than Bryant and often spent time with
Bryant at the Morgans’ home, at school, and on holidays. Julie was one of
Bryant’s only friends, and she would stand up for Bryant when others picked on
her. When Bryant was in her late teens/early twenties, Julie started noticing
some intermittent behavioral and emotional changes with Bryant.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 3 of 22
[5] Bryant moved out of Stella’s home and into an apartment around the age of
twenty “when she got her first inheritance.” Id. at 181. Bryant soon married
but divorced a few years later. Bryant was employed at an egg hatchery for a
day and at a department store for a year before she inherited a 200-acre farm in
Benton County in 1994. Bryant never again held gainful employment but was
able to support herself with her inheritance and proceeds from the family farm.
[6] Bryant lived on her own at the farm for a short time, furnishing the farmhouse,
buying a horse, and adopting a dog. Family members started to observe
unusual behaviors from Bryant, who was then in her late twenties or early
thirties. Bryant told Stella she saw writing on one of the buildings on the farm
and numbers on a wall in the farmhouse. On one occasion Stella and Frances
went to check on Bryant and found Bryant and her dog in a state of starvation.
Bryant was taken to the hospital by ambulance and then transferred to a mental
health facility. After a couple of days, Bryant signed herself out of the facility
and returned to the farmhouse. Thereafter, Bryant set two different fires at the
farmhouse, with the second burning the house to the ground.
[7] In 1996, Bryant sold the farm for approximately $450,000. She then alternated
between staying with Stella, staying in nice hotels, and disappearing for
extended periods of time. On one occasion, while staying with Stella, Stella
told Bryant that she needed to prepare Bryant’s own taxes. Bryant responded
by going upstairs, locking her dog up, and then setting Stella’s bedroom closet
on fire. Bryant promptly left the house, telling Stella only that she was going to
K-Mart. No one saw or heard from Bryant for the next two to three years,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 4 of 22
during which time she was hospitalized in a mental health facility in
Washington D.C. for about a year. When discharged, Bryant flew back to
Indianapolis and met with Stella and Frances. According to Frances, Bryant
was medicated and exhibited normal behavior until, against Stella’s wishes,
Bryant stopped taking her medication.
[8] After Bryant stopped taking her medication, she did not act paranoid, but
seemed disorganized. Stella believed Bryant had behavioral problems, not
mental health issues, and would not seek professional help for Bryant because
Stella believed it was a private family matter. Stella often treated Bryant like a
child and corrected her behavior, and Bryant usually responded. Bryant was a
chain smoker and Stella did not permit her to smoke in the house. Bryant
abided by Stella’s rule and smoked on the back porch. Bryant also had to be
home before Stella went to bed at night or risk being locked out as Stella was
the only person who had a key to the house and always locked things up.
[9] Along with her mental health, Bryant’s personal hygiene also declined as she
started to infrequently bathe or change her clothes. Julie described Bryant’s
appearance as like a “typical homeless person” with “tattered,” dirty, and
disheveled clothes, matted hair, dirty hands, and long fingernails. Id. at 182.
This was in stark contrast to Bryant’s appearance years before when she wore
expensive clothes and makeup. Stella was unable to convince Bryant to tend to
her hygiene or obtain employment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 5 of 22
[10] In addition to the decline in personal hygiene, Bryant started exhibiting more
unusual behaviors. She would mumble to herself, pull out her own hair, talk to
someone who was not there, and inappropriately laugh or loudly cackle. When
she would stay at Stella’s, Bryant would sleep under the dining room table,
using a black suitcase she always kept with her as a pillow, and sit on the floor
to eat her meals. On one occasion, Bryant left a paper bag that contained
$29,000 cash in a taxi on her ride home from Indianapolis. The police
eventually returned the money to Stella. From that money, Stella would give
Bryant cash in $2000 increments. Bryant was unaware that this was her money
from the sale of the farm and believed that Stella was providing her own
money. In a different incident, Bryant went to Stella’s to get money and when
she arrived, Bryant was in wet clothes, explaining to Stella that she had taken a
shower with her clothes on. Despite her unusual behaviors, Bryant was still
able to hold a conversation and at times act appropriately.
[11] Stella’s neighbor, Benjamin Miller, would often see Bryant smoking on Stella’s
back porch. In the evenings Miller went out back to smoke every hour or so
from the time he got off work until about 1:00 a.m. He would see Bryant
talking to herself, and she would curse and yell at him and try to intimidate
him. From inside his house, he could often hear Bryant screaming and yelling
either from Stella’s back yard or as she was walking down the street. In
September 2006, Miller saw Bryant leaning over his fence and pointing and
yelling at his grass for laughing at her.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 6 of 22
[12] Bryant’s money from the sale of the farm ran out in the summer of 2006. In the
months that followed, Bryant spent her days panhandling in downtown
Indianapolis, returning by city bus to Stella’s each night. Bryant was then fortyfive years old, and Stella was eighty-three years old.
[13] On December 21, 2006, Frances visited Stella at her home. Bryant was there,
pacing around the house with her arms crossed, which Bryant was known to do
when she was angry. When Frances asked Stella what was going on, Stella
replied that Bryant was upset because she had told Bryant that she needed to
find a new place to live after the new year. Stella had also told Bryant that she
was not going to give her any more money. Frances described Bryant’s
appearance that day as typical for Bryant, i.e, black clothes, unkept hair, dirty
and long fingernails, and stained hands. As Stella walked Frances to the door,
Bryant hovered at Stella’s back, which was unusual. Stella even told Bryant to
“get off.” Id. at 148. Frances told Stella that she would see her on Christmas
Day, as Stella had declined Frances’s invitation to join her and her family on
Christmas Eve so she could be home with Bryant.
[14] On December 22 and 23, 2006, Bryant’s routine remained the same. She woke
in the morning, hollered goodbye to Stella, took the city bus to Indianapolis,
panhandled near the CVS Pharmacy on Ohio Street, and then took the bus back
home to Stella’s in the late afternoon. About 8:00 p.m. on December 23,
Stella’s friend left a message on Stella’s answering machine. Around 10:30
p.m. on December 23, Miller saw Bryant on Stella’s back porch and observed
her “[s]moking and yelling, cussing, talking to herself.” Id. at 215. Miller had a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 7 of 22
clear view due to a streetlight in his own back yard and he could see Bryant
from “about mid-waist up.” Id. On the morning of December 24, 2006, Stella’s
friend reported to Frances that Stella was not in front of her house to be picked
up for church. At some point that day, Julie’s husband called the police and
requested a welfare check on Stella.
[15] Officers Richard Kelly and John Myers of the Greenwood Police Department
(GPD) received the dispatch and arrived at Stella’s home around 7:15 p.m. on
Christmas Eve. The officers observed a large pool of blood on the back patio
and drag marks on the ground that led from the house to the shed. The door to
the shed was secured with a padlock. The officers also located a woman’s shoe
and blood splatter on the east side of the house. Officer Kelly used a ladder to
peer into the shed from the top of the doors and observed a human body on the
ground. With assistance from the fire department, the padlock to the shed was
cut and the brick holding the door shut was moved aside to reveal Stella’s dead
body, unclothed except for her underwear. Stella’s blood-stained pink shirt and
sweatpants were found near her in the shed. Officer Kelly noted a “significant”
wound to Stella’s forehead. Transcript Vol. 2 at 124. Police secured the scene
and determined that all exterior doors to the house were locked and there were
no signs of forced entry.
[16] Stella’s family arrived shortly thereafter and immediately alerted the police to
Bryant and indicated that she might be at the Greyhound Bus Station in
downtown Indianapolis. Around 1:15 a.m. on December 25, 2006, GPD
Officer Doug Roller approached Bryant, who was sitting on a wooden bench at
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 8 of 22
the bus station. He noted that Bryant had clean hair and clean hands with short
fingernails, but her pants were covered in blood. Officer Roller read Bryant her
Miranda rights, and she nodded indicating her understanding thereof. Bryant
was “subdued,” but appeared to be coherent and cooperative; she was not
mumbling, yelling, or screaming. Id. at 161. Officer Roller asked Bryant when
she had last seen Stella, and Bryant stated that she last saw her mother “a
couple of days ago.” Id. at 157. When asked about the substance on her pants,
Bryant claimed it was something that she picked up on the streets of
Indianapolis. After Officer Roller made eye contact with Bryant and told her
that she could provide a better answer, Bryant broke eye contact, looked away,
and began to mumble.
[17] Bryant was transported to the Greenwood Police Station where she was
interviewed by Detective Patti Cummings and two other officers during the
early morning hours of Christmas Day. Bryant was again advised of her
Miranda rights, and she agreed to speak with them. Bryant stated that she had
last seen Stella two to three days prior and that the substance on her pants was
from the streets. She indicated that Stella was wearing pink pajamas or a gown
the last time she saw her and that Stella was probably in bed when she left to go
downtown. She also stated that the last time she was at Stella’s, she took a
sponge bath in the sink before taking the bus to Indianapolis.
[18] Upon further questioning, however, Bryant claimed to have spent the previous
four to five nights in Indianapolis and that specifically, she spent the previous
night at the bus station. She also stated that she tried to call Stella from the bus
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 9 of 22
station, but Stella did not answer. When it was suggested that Stella may have
upset her, Bryant told Detective Cummings that she did not do anything and
that she was not mad at Stella, and then she asked to call Stella. After the
interviewing officers made it clear that something had happened to Stella,
Bryant responded, “sounds like she’s in the morgue, isn’t she?” Transcript Vol. 3
at 42. Although pausing several times and laughing intermittently during the
interview, Bryant seemed to know where she was and what she was doing, and
her answers were logical.
[19] Two days later, upon Bryant’s request, Detective Cummings went to the jail to
speak with her. While continuing to look at the floor, Bryant asked Detective
Cummings if she could go to Stella’s funeral. After Detective Cummings told
her she had no control over that, Bryant told her to “find out who killed my
mom.” Transcript Vol. 2 at 241.
[20] Based on the physical evidence at the scene, police believe that sometime on the
night of December 23 or the early morning of December 24, Bryant struck
Stella on the head with a hammer near the desk in the dining room, leaving a
large pool of blood on the carpet and blood splatter on the wall. Blood smears
throughout the house indicate that Stella was able to move through the living
room and kitchen toward the back door. Stella went out the back door and
around the east side of the house where it is believed that Bryant caught up with
her and struck her again with the hammer leaving another large pool of blood
and blood splatter on the side of the house. From there, Bryant dragged Stella
to the shed in the backyard, stopping at the back patio where a large pool of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 10 of 22
blood was located. Bryant unlocked the padlock on the shed door, the key to
which Stella always kept on a hook by the back door. She then dragged Stella
into the shed and locked her in. An autopsy revealed that in addition to the
massive blunt force injury to her forehead, Stella suffered fourteen other blows
to her head that were consistent with the use of a hammer. The cause of
Stella’s death was multiple blunt force injuries with multiple skull fractures.
Samples taken from Bryant’s pants, shoes, sweatshirt, and coat tested positive
for Stella’s blood.
[21] During the search of Stella’s home, three things were found out of place—a
cigarette butt was found on a kitchen rug; the shed key was not on the hook
inside the back door but rather was found on a shelf in the pantry; and the
hammer used to kill Stella1 was in an unusual location at the back of a utensil
drawer. Additionally, the mattress in Stella’s upstairs bedroom was off the bed
frame, but there was no blood found upstairs. No money was found in Stella’s
purse, although the family knew her to always keep a small amount of cash.
Messages taken from Stella’s answering machine evidenced that, unlike any
other day, Bryant called Stella multiple times throughout the day on December
24. According to Julie, the family noted that the bureau appeared to have been
rifled through and there was a note in Stella’s handwriting laying out in the
open that had the names and numbers of two mental health facilities – Wishard
Hospital and Community Hospital North. Stella’s life insurance policy and will
1 Blood and hair on the hammer tested positive for Stella’s DNA.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 11 of 22
were found outside of the bureau, both of which provided for equal division
between Bryant and Frances.
[22] On December 29, 2006, the State charged Bryant with murder. On March 20,
2007, the trial court, based on an evaluation by forensic psychiatrist Dr. George
Parker, found Bryant incompetent to stand trial. She was subsequently
admitted to Larue Carter Memorial Hospital for competency restoration
services. Medical records from Larue Carter show that for the first couple of
years, Bryant was uncooperative and denied having auditory or visual
hallucinations. During the eleven years Bryant spent at Larue Carter, she was
treated with antipsychotic medications.
[23] In October 2018, the trial court was notified that Bryant had regained
competency. Bryant filed a notice of intent to offer a defense of insanity on
November 6, 2018. On August 13, 2019, the trial court ordered Bryant to
submit to two sanity evaluations. Dr. Parker and Dr. Don Olive evaluated
Bryant and filed their respective reports with the court in October 2019. Both
doctors independently found that Bryant suffered from schizophrenia but that
she appreciated the wrongfulness of her conduct at the time of Stella’s murder.
[24] A four-day jury trial commenced on January 28, 2020. Bryant’s primary
defense was that she was insane at the time of the crime. Bryant, however, also
testified in her own defense and denied killing Stella. She admitted that she was
at Stella’s house on the nights leading up to December 24, 2006, including
December 23. She also recalled Stella telling her that she would have to make
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 12 of 22
other living arrangements after Christmas and that Stella was not going to give
her more money. Bryant testified that she spent the night of December 23 at
Stella’s home and that she left early in the morning on December 24 to ride the
bus to Indianapolis, where she panhandled as she usually did. Before leaving
Stella’s for the last time, Bryant testified that she took her usual sponge bath in
the sink and then yelled up to Stella before leaving. She claimed that she did
not see Stella that morning. Bryant explained that she called Stella that
afternoon because she was unable to take a bus home due to the holiday
schedule. Bryant denied ever screaming at the neighbors, yelling at the grass,
pulling out her hair, feeling paranoid, or knowing anything about Stella’s death.
She also denied knowing how Stella’s blood got on her pants.
[25] Dr. Olive, a clinical forensic psychologist, provided expert testimony based on
medical records from Larue Carter, police reports, legal documents, and
witness statements and interviews, as well as an “abridged” interview of Bryant
that lasted about ninety minutes, during which Bryant denied killing Stella,
maintained that she did not recall any details, and denied being mentally ill.
Transcript Vol. 4 at 123. Despite her denial of suffering from mental illness, Dr.
Olive diagnosed Bryant as having schizophrenia.
[26] With regard to Bryant’s state of mind at the time of the crime, Dr. Olive
explained that because Bryant provided no insight given her outright denial that
she was the one who killed Stella, he had to rely primarily on other sources of
information to provide insight into Bryant’s demeanor before, during, and after
the offense. Specifically, he found telling evidence of flight and deception by
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 13 of 22
Bryant, which suggested to him an appreciation of wrongfulness. Dr. Olive did
not believe Bryant was actively psychotic when Frances saw her on December
21 or when she was interviewed by police after the crime. Taking everything
into consideration, Dr. Olive opined that Bryant became enraged at Stella after
Stella told her she needed to find a new place to stay and that she was cut off
financially and that Bryant was unable to control that rage. He testified that
Bryant was in “massive denial” about killing Stella and that she cannot
acknowledge her own conduct. Id. at 134. Dr. Olive did not see any evidence
that Bryant was suffering from delusions or hallucinations that may have
rendered her incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of her conduct at the
time of the crime. He further testified that it was possible to have schizophrenia
and still appreciate the wrongfulness of your conduct, even if the person hears
voices or experiences paranoia.
[27] Dr. Parker had conducted Bryant’s competency evaluation in 2007. At that
time, he found Bryant was highly impaired, hearing voices, talking to herself,
disoriented in thinking and behavior, and not taking care of herself, all of which
were consistent with schizophrenia. He reported to the court that Bryant was
not competent to stand trial.
[28] In 2019, Dr. Parker was appointed to evaluate Bryant’s sanity at the time of the
offense. He reviewed all his previous records as well as other documents
provided to him, including witness statements and police reports around the
time of the crime, and records from Larue Carter. Dr. Parker also interviewed
Bryant. As with Dr. Olive, Bryant denied killing Stella, claimed that she could
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 14 of 22
not remember, and denied experiencing symptoms of psychosis, so the
interview itself was not very insightful. Dr. Parker diagnosed Bryant with
schizophrenia, as she exhibited four of the five symptoms associated therewith
(including auditory hallucinations). He also noted that Larue Carter had
determined Bryant’s IQ to be “in the range of the sixties,” which is below the
cutoff for intellectual disability. Id. at 178. As to whether Bryant appreciated
the wrongfulness of her conduct, Dr. Parker considered evidence that she
moved Stella’s body, hid and locked Stella’s body in the shed, hid the hammer,
left the scene, lied to police about when she was last at Stella’s house, and
dismissed the idea that the blood on her clothes belonged to Stella. Such
conduct suggested to Dr. Parker that Bryant “had some awareness that it would
not be a good idea to place herself at her mother’s home during the time of the
alleged offense” and that such indicated an appreciation of the wrongful of her
actions. Id. at 166. Based on his review of the information before him, Dr.
Parker opined that “despite the very clear evidence of significant impairment
from psychosis . . . Bryant retained a basic appreciation of the wrongfulness of
her actions at the time of the alleged offense.” Id. at 166-67.
[29] Like Dr. Olive, Dr. Parker agreed that a person can have a mental disease or
defect and suffer from hallucinations and yet, still appreciate the wrongfulness
of their conduct. Dr. Parker testified that it is relatively uncommon for
psychosis to prevent a person from appreciating the wrongfulness of their
actions. Dr. Parker found no evidence that Bryant suffered hallucinations that
told her to kill Stella.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 15 of 22
[30] At the conclusion of the evidence, the jury rejected Bryant’s insanity defense
and found her guilty but mentally ill. On February 22, 2020, the trial court
sentenced Bryant to fifty-five years executed. Bryant now appeals.
Discussion & Decision
[31] To convict a criminal defendant, the State must prove each element of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Ind. Code § 35-41-4-1(a). A defendant,
however, may avoid criminal responsibility by invoking the insanity defense.
Myers v. State, 27 N.E.3d 1069, 1075 (Ind. 2015). This plea requires the
defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (1) that she suffers from
a “mental disease or defect”2 and (2) that the “mental disease or defect”
rendered her unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct at the time of
the offense. I.C. §§ 35-41-4-1(b), 35-41-3-6(a). Proof of mental illness alone is
not enough. Myers, 27 N.E.3d at 1075.
[32] Because the jury rejected her insanity defense, Bryant faces a heavy burden as
she is now appealing from a negative judgment. Lawson v. State, 966 N.E.2d
1273, 1279 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Galloway v. State, 938 N.E.2d 699, 708
(Ind. 2010)), trans. denied. Further, a factfinder’s determination that “a
defendant was not insane at the time of the offense warrants substantial
deference from” an appellate court. Galloway, 938 N.E.2d at 709. On review,
2 A “mental disease or defect” is defined as “a severely abnormal mental condition that grossly and
demonstrably impairs a person’s perception, but the term does not include an abnormality manifested only by
repeated unlawful or antisocial conduct.” I.C. § 35-41-3-6(b)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 16 of 22
we do not reweigh evidence, reassess witness credibility, or disturb the
factfinder’s reasonable inferences. Id. at 708. We will instead affirm the
conviction unless “the evidence is without conflict and leads only to the
conclusion that the defendant was insane when the crime was committed.”
Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind. 2004). “[A]s a matter of law, a
person is either sane or insane at the time of the crime; there is no intermediate
ground.” Galloway, 938 N.E.2d at 711 (quoting Marley v. State, 747 N.E.2d
1123, 1128 (Ind. 2001)).
[33] Here, the State has never disputed that, as found by both expert witnesses and
suspected by Stella’s family, Bryant suffers from schizophrenia, a mental
disease or defect. Bryant thus satisfied the first element of the insanity statute.
As noted above, however, mental illness alone is not sufficient to relieve
criminal responsibility. See Myers, 27 N.E.3d at 1075; Galloway 938 N.E.3d at
708. A defendant who is mentally ill must also establish that he or she was
unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct. Where a defendant
fails to establish this second element of the insanity defense, the defendant may
be found guilty but mentally ill (“GBMI”).
[34] The only contested issue is whether, given her schizophrenia, Bryant
appreciated the wrongfulness of her conduct at the time of the murder. As our
Supreme Court has explained, this determination is a question for the trier of
fact. Thompson, 804 N.E.2d at 1149. In making a sanity determination, the
factfinder may consider all relevant evidence. Barcroft v. State, 111 N.E.3d 997,
1002-03 (Ind. 2018). This evidence may include opinion testimony from expert
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 17 of 22
witnesses, opinion testimony from lay witnesses, proof of the defendant’s
demeanor before, during, and after the offense, and the defendant’s history of
mental illness. Id. at 1003, 1008. Although “central” to a determination of
sanity, expert testimony is “purely advisory, not conclusive.” Id. at 1003 (citing
Cate v. State, 644 N.E.2d 546, 547 (Ind. 1994)). Indeed, the trier of fact is free to
disregard or discredit expert testimony and instead rely on other probative
evidence from which to infer a defendant’s sanity. Galloway, 938 N.E.2d at
709. Other probative evidence may include testimony from lay witnesses,
which can be useful in identifying the defendant’s behavior before, during, and
after a crime and which may be more indicative of mental health at the time of
the crime than mental examinations that occur weeks, months, or even years
later. Barcroft, 111 N.E.3d at 1003-04. A factfinder may also rely on
circumstantial evidence as to a defendant’s actions, statements, and demeanor
before, during, and after a crime to infer his or her mental state. Id. at 1004.
[35] Here, as set out in detail above, both expert witnesses, Dr. Parker and Dr.
Olive, opined that Bryant, despite suffering from schizophrenia, appreciated the
wrongfulness of her conduct at the time of the murder. On appeal, Bryant
attempts to discredit the doctors’ expert opinions by pointing out what she
perceives to be flaws and concessions in their evaluations that she maintains
undermines their ultimate determination that she was sane at the time of the
offense. Specifically, she asserts that Dr. Parker failed to review key witness
statements about her mental health history and behaviors and instead relied
primarily on police reports. With regard to Dr. Olive, Bryant claims that while
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 18 of 22
he reviewed witness statements, he failed to consider that Bryant was treated
previously for mental illness on two occasions.
[36] Bryant’s attack on the credibility of the expert evidence is unavailing. First, we
note that at trial, Bryant questioned Dr. Olive regarding his lack of knowledge
about the incident a few months before the murder when Miller observed
Bryant leaning over his fence and yelling at the grass for laughing at her. Dr.
Olive agreed that this incident could have been prompted by visual or auditory
hallucinations, which is what Bryant argued to the jury during closing.
Similarly, Bryant questioned Dr. Parker as to whether he was aware of her prior
hospitalizations in the 1990s, and he responded that he was not. Bryant thus
challenged the basis upon which both doctors rendered their opinions.
Notwithstanding Bryant’s challenges, neither Dr. Parker nor Dr. Olive altered
their opinion as to Bryant’s sanity at the time of the crime.
[37] In addition to the expert opinions, the jury heard evidence of Bryant’s behavior
and mental illness over the years prior to the murder through testimony from
Stella’s family and Stella’s neighbor. No one questioned that Bryant suffered
from schizophrenia or that she experienced hallucinations.3
The jury was thus
presented with the very evidence that Bryant claims was crucial to finding she
was insane at the time of the murder. It was within the jury’s prerogative as to
3 Bryant asserts that “it is very possible that she was hearing voices that told her to kill her mother” or that
she “could have been in a delusional state on the night of the killing, believing her mother was possessed, was
going to harm her and therefore needed to be killed and locked up.” Appellant’s Brief at 36. There is no
evidence in the record to support such assertion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 19 of 22
the weight to afford the expert opinions in light of her challenges thereto and
the evidence presented at trial.
[38] Bryant also directs us to Payne v. State, 144 N.E.3d 706 (Ind. 2020), Barcroft, 111
N.E.3d 997, and Galloway, 938 N.E.2d 699, as support for her claim that the
jury erred in rejecting her insanity defense. Her reliance on these cases is
unpersuasive.
[39] In Payne, three experts determined the defendant was insane, but the jury
rejected that evidence and found him guilty but mentally ill. A majority of the
Supreme Court held that the unanimous expert opinion and the defendant’s
well-documented and consistent history of mental illness supported only the
conclusion that he was insane when the crimes were committed. Payne, 144
N.E.3d at 713. In contrast, here, the unanimous expert opinion was that Bryant
was sane and there was evidence from which it could be reasonably inferred
that Bryant did in fact appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct at the time of
the murder.
[40] In Barcroft, the trial court rejected the unanimous expert opinion (which was
provided by Dr. Parker and Dr. Olive) that defendant was insane at the time of
the offense and found defendant guilty but mentally ill. A majority of the
Supreme Court found that evidence of the defendant’s demeanor before,
during, and after the crime supported the trial court’s rejection of insanity.
Barcroft, 111 N.E.3d at 1005. The majority noted that the experts, although
unanimous in their ultimate opinion, offered conflicting diagnoses, and that the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 20 of 22
defendant was not diagnosed with schizophrenia until after her arrest. Further,
the majority noted that the defendant’s demeanor before, during, and after the
offense could reasonably have been viewed as demonstrating a consciousness of
guilt. In light of such, the majority affirmed the factfinder’s determination that
the defendant was sane at the time of the crime even though such was at odds
with the expert opinions presented. Here, the experts were unanimous in their
finding of sanity. Moreover, there was evidence from which the jury could
have reasonably determined that Bryant appreciated the wrongfulness of her
actions.
[41] In Galloway, a majority of the Supreme Court held that the unanimous expert
opinion of insanity was not sufficiently rebutted by demeanor evidence relied
on by the factfinder to reject insanity. 938 N.E.2d at 715. Further, the majority
found that there was no lay opinion testimony that conflicted with the expert
opinions. Id. at 714-15.
[42] Here, there was other evidence presented at trial that is consistent with the
experts’ opinions. Just days before Stella’s murder, Frances observed Bryant’s
anger at Stella after Stella told her that she would have to find a new place to
stay after the new year and that she would not be providing her with money.
Until then, Bryant had lived exclusively off her inheritance and money from the
sale of the family farm. Stella’s ultimatum meant that Bryant would be
homeless and without financial support.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 21 of 22
[43] Further, during commission of the offense, the evidence shows that Bryant
struck Stella on the head with a hammer inside the house. Blood smears
throughout the house show that Stella was able to make her way out the back
door and around the side of the house before Bryant struck her again. Bryant
then drug Stella to the shed in the back. Bryant took the time to gather the key
to the padlock on the shed, unlock the shed, and then drag Stella inside. She
then closed the door to the shed, locked the padlock, and placed a brick against
the door. Bryant returned the padlock key to the house but placed it in an
unusual place in the pantry rather than its customary place on a hook inside the
back door. Bryant placed the hammer at the back of a utensil drawer rather
than its usual place under the sink. Bryant then cleaned herself up before
leaving. There was ample evidence that Bryant consistently had dirty and
matted hair, dirty hands and long fingernails, and dirty clothes. When located
at the bus station, Bryant did not appear disheveled; her hair was not matted,
her hands were clean, and her fingernails were short. Although her pants were
covered in Stella’s blood, Bryant had taken steps to remove blood from her
body. In addition, Bryant had broken her routine by calling Stella repeatedly
after the murder and not taking the bus home in the evening. The jury could
reasonably infer from this evidence that Bryant appreciated the wrongfulness of
her conduct in murdering Stella. Bryant’s arguments that her actions of putting
things back in order and fleeing the scene were part of her routine and that the
blood on her clothes was evidence that she was not hiding her murder of Stella
were presented to and rejected by the jury.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 20A-CR-481 | February 4, 2021 Page 22 of 22
[44] We also note the evidence that when confronted after the murder, Bryant
initially lied to the police about the last time she saw Stella, claiming that it had
been several days. At trial she admitted to having been at Stella’s the night of
December 23 and leaving the morning of December 24. Several officers who
interacted with Bryant described her as quiet, but cooperative. The jury was
also afforded the opportunity to assess Bryant’s demeanor when a recording of
Bryant’s interview with the police was played at trial. In all, there was ample
evidence, from both expert witnesses and demeanor evidence before, during,
and after the murder, from which the jury could have reasonably concluded that
Bryant appreciated the wrongfulness of her actions and was therefore sane
when she murdered Stella.

Outcome: Judgment affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: