Legal experts anxious to hear testimony on Mitchell's mental state

Estimated read time: 2-3 minutes

This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.

SALT LAKE CITY -- The question of Brian David Mitchell's mental state during the nine-month kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart is already playing a central role in the case. Legal experts expect the jury to soon be hearing key testimony from mental health experts on both sides.

He said he knew exactly what he was doing and that he understood the consequences of his actions.

–Elizabeth Smart

The central question in this case will be whether Mitchell knew what he was doing and understood what he was doing was wrong. In fact, on the stand Tuesday, Elizabeth Smart gave testimony directly relevant to that question.

Elizabeth recalled an exchange with Mitchell shortly after he kidnapped her at knifepoint.

"I remember saying that if he let me go right now, that we wouldn't press charges on him," she testified. "He said he knew exactly what he was doing and that he understood the consequences of his actions."

What is ... the Utah insanity defense statute?

The statute states: It is a defense to a prosecution under any statute or ordinance that the defendant, as a result of mental illness, lacked the mental state required as an element of the offense charged.

"I think that's a very important moment," says Daniel Medwed, criminal law expert and professor at the University of Utah.

Medwed says prosecutors are trying to show Mitchell was reasoned, calculating and understood what he was doing.

"Whether or not he knew what he was doing was wrong, that's going to be the big question," Medwed says. "I imagine if I was the defense lawyer, or I imagine what the defense team is probably going to try to do is to suggest, 'Yeah, maybe he knew he was doing something, but he thought it was right.'"

The burden is on Mitchell's attorneys to show he didn't appreciate the nature, quality or wrongfulness of the acts. Because it's difficult to know what another person is thinking, testimony about his behavior could prove crucial to the jury.

"It's really hard to get inside the defendant at the time of the crime and figure out what they knew, so what we do is look to their behavior, look to circumstantial evidence of their behavior, which may give some insight into whether they knew what they were doing was wrong," says Teneille Brown, associate law professor at the University of Utah

An insanity defense is rare -- used in about 1 percent of criminal cases and successful in just a fraction of those, in part because it's so hard to prove.

"Whether he knew it was wrong -- and that's essentially the $64,000 question here and will probably come down to a battle of expert witnesses," Medwed says.

Mitchell's defense attorneys have said that an insanity verdict will still likely result in incarceration for the remainder of Mitchell's life.

E-mail: jdaley@ksl.com