## Facts

- Harry Eugene Rupert was charged with kidnapping in Colorado state court.
- Rupert initially pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, requiring a separate sanity trial.
- At the sanity trial, the prosecution presented a lay witness, Durham, who described his acquaintance with Rupert and Rupert’s acts, conduct, and conversations, and then gave an opinion that Rupert was sane.
- Rupert presented expert psychiatric testimony supporting insanity.
- The sanity jury found Rupert sane at the time of the offense.
- Rupert then entered a general plea of not guilty; the merits were tried to the court without a jury.
- At the bench trial, Rupert offered psychiatric testimony (Dr. Karcher) that Rupert was incapable of forming any intent at the time of the alleged kidnapping.
- The trial court found Rupert guilty and imposed a prison sentence of 15 to 20 years.

## Issues

1. Whether a lay witness may give an opinion on a defendant’s sanity when the witness describes the observations and acquaintance forming the basis of that opinion.
2. Whether admitting the gun used in the kidnapping at the sanity trial was erroneous or prejudicial.
3. Whether the sanity trial court was required to direct a verdict of insanity based on psychiatric testimony.
4. Whether the bench-trial court erred by rejecting uncontradicted psychiatric testimony that Rupert could not form criminal intent.

## Decision

- The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held it was proper to admit Durham’s lay opinion on sanity because an adequate foundation of personal knowledge and observed conduct was shown.
- The court held admission of the gun at the sanity trial was not prejudicial error because it related to testimony describing Rupert’s conduct relevant to mental condition.
- The court held the trial court properly refused to direct a verdict of insanity because sanity remained a fact question for the jury in light of the presumption of sanity and conflicting evidence.
- The court held the trial judge, as factfinder, was not required to accept the psychiatrist’s opinion on inability to form intent as conclusive.

## Legal Principles

- A lay witness may offer an opinion on sanity if the witness had sufficient opportunity to observe the defendant and first relates the acts, conduct, and conversations on which the opinion is based; weight is for the factfinder.
- A presumption of sanity, together with competent evidence supporting sanity, creates a fact issue; expert psychiatric testimony favoring insanity does not require a directed verdict.
- Even uncontradicted expert testimony on insanity or capacity to form intent is not binding; the trier of fact may accept or reject it in whole or in part.
- Physical evidence connected to the defendant’s conduct may be admitted in a sanity trial when relevant to mental condition; admission is not reversible absent prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Rupert’s kidnapping conviction, holding that properly founded lay opinions on sanity and relevant physical evidence were admissible at the sanity trial, and that neither psychiatric testimony on insanity nor psychiatric testimony on lack of intent compelled findings in Rupert’s favor because mental state determinations remain for the factfinder.


Rupert v. People, 429 P.2d 276 (Colo. 1967)