Sufficiency of the evidence; Insanity defense; Expert testimony; Guilty but mentally ill of first-degree murder; Premeditation & deliberation; Great weight of the evidence; Diminished capacity; Judgment of sentence (JOS) clerical error

The court held that sufficient evidence supported that defendant-Tyson was not legally insane at the time of the crimes and supported her conviction of guilty but mentally ill of first-degree murder as to victim-W. There was evidence to support the trial court’s finding that she premeditated and deliberated in shooting W, and its verdict of guilty but mentally ill was not against the great weight of the evidence. Thus, the court affirmed, but remanded for the ministerial task of correcting the JOS. Among other things, Tyson argued that the trial court should have relied on the testimony from her expert, Dr. Z. She contended that Z “had a great deal more experience” than the prosecution’s expert, Dr. B. But Tyson selectively focused on the last five years of B’s long career. The testimony showed that B “had been practicing in her field for more than 50 years and was qualified as an expert without objection. She had completed more than 500 evaluations for various courts during her time at the Center for Forensic Psychiatry, and she had trained 150 to 200 other personnel.” Thus, although Tyson pointed to testimony that B “may have only performed 10 criminal responsibility evaluations within the past five years, her argument ignores [B’s] extensive experience and knowledge . . . .” Tyson also argued that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s ruling that she premeditated and deliberated in W’s murder. One of the witnesses “heard the first gunshot and then saw Tyson walk up to [W] and shoot her in the head. An investigating police officer testified that it took approximately six seconds to get from” the location of another victim (J) to W’s location. “There is no time limit for premeditation and deliberation” and there was evidence showing she “had at least six seconds to make a conscious decision to walk to [W], point the gun at her head, and shoot her point blank. Such conduct was evidence against a ‘sudden impulse’ negating premeditation and, instead, could be seen as evidence that Tyson had the opportunity for a ’second look’ at her actions.” The court found no error in the trial court’s determination that this was so. Further, she “was described as being calm, which could be construed as evidence of premeditation and deliberation. Tyson also stated something to the effect of ‘I’m not here for you’ to one of the witnesses” and B believed this indicated Tyson targeted J and W. Similarly, her “actions of tossing the weapon into the bushes could be construed as evidence of trying to cover up her involvement.”