Arizona Supreme Court: Lisa Gilpin v. Hon. Danielle Harris/Marcos Jerell Martinez
Case No. CR-23-0252-PR Filed August 7, 2024
ISSUES:
- Whether a defendant found Guilty Except Insane (GEI) is considered “convicted” under Arizona’s Victims’ Bill of Rights (VBR) for the purpose of restitution.
- The interpretation of Arizona’s GEI statute (A.R.S. § 13-502) and related statutes in the context of criminal responsibility.
DECISION:
- The court held that a GEI defendant is considered “convicted” under the VBR when their actions caused or threatened death or serious injury, making them responsible for restitution.
- The court interpreted the GEI statute as holding defendants criminally responsible for their actions, despite their mental state at the time of the offense.
Synopsis:
The Arizona Supreme Court examined the meaning of “convicted” in the context of the state’s Victims’ Bill of Rights and the Guilty Except Insane statute. The court concluded that the legislature intended to hold GEI defendants criminally responsible for their actions, particularly when those actions caused or threatened death or serious injury.
NOTE: In overruling the Heartfield case, the Arizona Supreme Court held that victim restitution is available from defendants adjudged GEI when their actions caused or threatened death or serious injury. State v. Heartfield, 196 Ariz. 407, 410 ¶ 10 (App. 2000)
Outcome of the Case:
The case was remanded to the superior court to determine the victim’s eligibility for restitution, the amount owed, whether the defendant is liable for payments while suffering from a mental disease or defect, and for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.