## Facts

- Christopher James Turgeon claimed he received messages from God and led a religious group that became known as the “Gatekeepers.”
- The Gatekeepers saw themselves as engaged in a spiritual “war” against what they viewed as sinful government and institutions, and they supported their mission through crimes such as robberies and frauds against businesses they considered sinful.
- Dan Jess, a former member of the group, left and publicly called Turgeon a “false prophet,” increasing conflict between Jess and the Gatekeepers.
- During a Gatekeepers meeting, Turgeon claimed God told him that Jess “must be killed.” Blaine Applin, another Gatekeeper, also claimed he received the same directive.
- The group agreed that Turgeon and Applin would carry out the killing.
- Turgeon and Applin prepared by obtaining camouflage clothing and wiping fingerprints from the ammunition or casings they planned to use.
- They drove from California to Jess’s home in Washington.
- While traveling, Turgeon said he asked God to cause an unscheduled stop if the killing was not God’s will; they instead saw multiple rainbows, which they interpreted as a sign of divine approval.
- At Jess’s home, Applin knocked at the door. When Jess answered, Applin shot him multiple times, killing him.
- Turgeon remained in the car, acted as a lookout, and drove the getaway vehicle.
- Washington charged Turgeon and Applin with first-degree murder. They were tried jointly and each raised an insanity defense based on a claimed “deific decree” (a delusional belief that God directly commanded the killing).
- The trial court instructed the jury on Washington’s statutory insanity defense (M’Naghten) and also gave a separate deific-decree instruction connecting that theory to whether the claimed divine command eliminated the defendant’s ability to distinguish right from wrong.
- The jury rejected Turgeon’s insanity defense and convicted him of first-degree murder.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court’s deific-decree instruction misstated Washington insanity law by requiring the jury to decide whether the claimed divine command eliminated the defendant’s ability to distinguish right from wrong.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s rejection of Turgeon’s insanity defense, given evidence that he planned the crime and took steps to avoid detection.

## Decision

- The Washington Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed Turgeon’s first-degree murder conviction.
- The court upheld the deific-decree instruction as consistent with Washington’s M’Naghten-based insanity standard rather than a separate or broader insanity test.
- The court held that the jury could reasonably find Turgeon failed to prove legal insanity because the evidence supported a finding that he retained the ability to understand the wrongfulness of the killing.

## Legal Principles

- Washington’s insanity defense follows the M’Naghten framework: a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity only if, because of a mental disease or defect, the defendant was unable to perceive the nature and quality of the act or was unable to tell right from wrong with reference to the act.
- A claimed “deific decree” does not excuse a killing merely because the defendant says God commanded it; the claim must still satisfy the statutory/M’Naghten requirement that the mental condition prevented the defendant from distinguishing right from wrong as to the charged conduct.
- A deific-decree jury instruction may properly focus the jury on whether the supposed divine command overcame the defendant’s capacity to distinguish right from wrong, rather than treating a sincere belief in a divine command as automatically exculpatory.
- Evidence of preparation, concealment, coordinated roles, and flight (including disguises, wiping fingerprints, acting as lookout, and serving as getaway driver) may support an inference that the defendant appreciated the wrongfulness of the act and acted to avoid punishment, permitting the jury to reject an insanity claim.
- The defendant bears the burden to prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence; an appellate court will not disturb the jury’s rejection of the defense when the record contains evidence supporting a finding of sanity under the governing standard.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Turgeon’s conviction, holding that Washington’s deific-decree theory is not a stand-alone insanity rule and may be presented to the jury in a way that turns on the same M’Naghten question—whether a mental disease or defect left the defendant unable to distinguish right from wrong—while evidence of planning and efforts to avoid detection supported the jury’s determination that Turgeon did not meet his burden to prove insanity.


State v. Turgeon, 120 Wash. App. 1050 (2004)