## Facts

- Deputies found four members of the Brom family dead in their home, each with multiple sharp-force injuries; a blood-stained ax was recovered and linked to the killings, and the defendant’s fingerprints were on the handle.
- David Francis Brom, age sixteen, was certified to stand trial as an adult.
- Brom pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental illness under a bifurcated procedure separating (1) a guilt phase from (2) a mental-illness phase.
- In the guilt phase, the defense sought to introduce psychiatric expert testimony to show Brom lacked capacity to premeditate; the trial court excluded it and instructed the jury not to consider mental-illness evidence during phase one.
- The defense presented no testimony in phase one; the jury found Brom guilty of four counts of first-degree murder.
- In phase two, Brom presented psychiatric testimony; experts agreed he had some mental impairment, though opinions differed on legal insanity; the jury again returned guilty verdicts.
- The court imposed four life sentences, one per victim, ordered consecutively.

## Issues

1. In a bifurcated trial where the defendant pleads mental illness, may the defendant present psychiatric expert testimony in the guilt phase to negate premeditation for first-degree murder?
2. Did excluding such psychiatric testimony and limiting consideration of mental illness to the second phase violate due process?
3. Did the imposition of four consecutive life sentences constitute an abuse of sentencing discretion?

## Decision

- The court affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- Psychiatric expert testimony was inadmissible in the guilt phase to negate premeditation in this bifurcated framework.
- The exclusion and related jury instruction did not violate due process because the defendant could present psychiatric evidence in the mental-illness phase.
- Four consecutive life sentences for four victims were within statutory authority and not an abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- In Minnesota’s bifurcated procedure for mental-illness defenses, psychiatric expert testimony is confined to the mental-illness phase and may not be used in the guilt phase to negate premeditation or intent.
- Minnesota does not recognize a diminished-capacity doctrine through psychiatric expert proof offered to disprove mens rea elements in the guilt phase.
- Limiting mental-illness evidence to the second phase does not violate due process where the defendant retains a meaningful opportunity to present the mental-illness defense in that phase.
- Whether to impose concurrent or consecutive life sentences for multiple first-degree murder convictions is committed to the trial court’s discretion; review asks whether the result is commensurate with culpability and not an exaggeration of criminality.

## Conclusion

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that, in bifurcated trials involving a mental-illness defense, psychiatric experts cannot testify in the guilt phase to negate premeditation, and it upheld both the trial structure and the trial court’s decision to impose consecutive life sentences for four murders.


State v. Brom, 463 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 1990)