## Facts

- Damon Andrew Jackson was accused of severely abusing and sexually assaulting his young son.
- Jackson was tried in a Michigan bench trial and found guilty but mentally ill of first-degree child abuse and first-degree criminal sexual conduct involving a child under 13.
- Jackson testified he could control his conduct around others and deliberately took the child into bathrooms to commit the offenses so others would not discover them.
- A defense psychologist supported Jackson’s insanity theory on the volitional prong but testified that Jackson would have conformed his conduct to the law if a law-enforcement officer had been present.
- Jackson claimed legal insanity under Michigan’s statutory standard, focusing on an alleged inability to conform his conduct to the law.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court misapplied MCL 768.21a by effectively substituting a “policeman-at-the-elbow” test for the statute’s volitional prong when rejecting Jackson’s insanity defense.
2. Whether the record supported the finding that Jackson did not lack substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law, making a guilty-but-mentally-ill verdict proper.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, the guilty-but-mentally-ill verdict, and the concurrent sentences (10–15 years for child abuse and 25–75 years for CSC I).
- The court held the trial court applied the correct statutory insanity standard under MCL 768.21a.
- The trial court’s references to what Jackson would have done in the presence of a police officer were treated as probative evidence of volitional capacity, not as a replacement legal test.
- Evidence that Jackson concealed the conduct and could refrain from offending when detection was likely supported the finding that he retained substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the law.

## Legal Principles

- Under MCL 768.21a, legal insanity requires that, due to mental illness or mental retardation, the defendant lacks substantial capacity either (a) to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of conduct, or (b) to conform conduct to the requirements of law.
- A court may consider evidence framed in “policeman-at-the-elbow” terms as relevant to whether the defendant had substantial capacity to conform conduct, so long as the ultimate determination applies the statutory standard.
- The trier of fact is not required to accept an expert’s conclusion on insanity and may weigh concessions and other evidence bearing on the defendant’s self-control and purposeful conduct.
- A guilty-but-mentally-ill verdict is appropriate where the defendant is mentally ill but does not satisfy the statutory requirements for legal insanity.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a guilty-but-mentally-ill verdict and rejection of an insanity defense, holding that considering “policeman-at-the-elbow” testimony as evidence of volitional control is consistent with MCL 768.21a when the statutory insanity standard governs the final analysis.


People v. Jackson, 627 N.W.2d 11 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001)