## Facts

- Adele Guido was charged with murdering her husband and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
- The marriage involved prolonged conflict, including the husband’s ongoing relationship with another woman, non-support of Guido and their child, and evidence of threats and physical intimidation.
- Shortly before the homicide, there was evidence that the husband confronted Guido at her workplace, attempted to choke her, and brandished a pocketknife.
- On the night of the killing, the husband was asleep on a couch; Guido took a gun, initially intending suicide, then returned to the living room and shot her husband until the gun was empty.
- Two court-appointed psychiatrists initially concluded Guido was legally sane, diagnosing an emotional disorder described as anxiety neurosis and believing it did not qualify as a legally cognizable “disease of the mind.”
- After defense counsel discussed the legal meaning of “disease of the mind” with the psychiatrists, they changed their ultimate legal conclusion to insanity without changing the underlying medical findings; the concluding page of the report was retyped.
- At trial, the judge required production of the original report and questioned defense counsel outside the jury’s presence about possible deception connected to the report’s alteration.
- In summation, the prosecutor argued that Guido and her attorney, together with the psychiatrists, had practiced “deception” and perpetrated a “fraud” on the court; the trial court allowed this attack without adequate corrective measures.

## Issues

1. Whether prosecutorial argument accusing the defense and its experts of fraud and deception, on this record, constituted prejudicial misconduct requiring reversal.
2. Whether defense counsel’s discussion of the legal standard for insanity with court-appointed psychiatrists, leading to a revised ultimate opinion, was improper manipulation of evidence.
3. Whether “disease of the mind” for insanity purposes admits of a precise legal definition, and how that affects evaluation of psychiatric testimony.

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the second-degree murder conviction and remanded for a new trial.
- The Court held that the prosecutor’s fraud-and-deception accusations against Guido, defense counsel, and the psychiatrists were improper and likely to bias the jury on a central credibility issue.
- The Court rejected the claim that defense counsel’s legal discussion with the psychiatrists constituted fraud; the psychiatrists’ changed conclusion was found to be honest reconsideration of the legal implications of unchanged medical observations.
- The Court stated that “disease of the mind” lacks a precise, universally accepted legal definition, making legitimate disagreement about its application foreseeable in insanity litigation.

## Legal Principles

- A prosecutor may not argue, without proper basis, that defense counsel and defense experts colluded to commit fraud on the court; such attacks can deny a defendant a fair trial when credibility is central to the defense.
- Counsel may explain governing legal standards to expert witnesses; an expert’s revision of an ultimate legal conclusion after understanding the legal framework is not, by itself, evidence of deception.
- “Disease of the mind” in insanity doctrine is not susceptible to a single definitive legal formulation; its application depends on case-specific proof and contested legal-medical judgments.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the prosecutor’s accusations of fraudulent orchestration of the insanity defense unfairly tainted the jury’s evaluation of critical witnesses, and it confirmed that lawyer–expert consultation about legal standards is permissible given the indeterminate legal content of “disease of the mind.”


State v. Guido, 40 N.J. 191, 191 A.2d 45 (N.J. 1963)