Najam, J.
Lori Barcroft appeals her convictions, following a bench trial, for murder and a sentencing enhancement for the unlawful use of a firearm in the commission of an offense. …
….
In 2007, Jordan Ashbury, one of Barcroft’s adult sons, became concerned about Barcroft’s deteriorating mental state, which he believed was caused because she was “demonically possessed.” … Ashbury asked Pastor Jaman Iseminger, the pastor at the church Barcroft and Ashbury attended, to help Barcroft. Pastor Iseminger told Ashbury that Barcroft needed to be prayed over and also hospitalized. …
On the morning of May 19, 2012, Pastor Iseminger arrived at the church at approximately 6:45 a.m. in order to open the church kitchen for Jeff Harris, who was preparing to lead a workshop. Harris was in the kitchen when he noticed Barcroft walking around the outside of the church. … Harris asked Barcroft if he could help her, and Barcroft asked if Pastor Iseminger was there.
Harris entered the church and went down the interior stairs to the basement, where he found Pastor Iseminger in his office. … Pastor Iseminger followed Harris back up the stairs, and after Harris passed Barcroft, Barcroft shot at Pastor Iseminger. …
….
On May 21, 2012, the State charged Barcroft with murder and sought a sentencing enhancement for the use of a firearm. On August 29, 2012, Barcroft filed a motion for a competency and sanity evaluation. On December 14, the trial court found that Barcroft lacked the ability to understand the proceedings or to assist in her defense, but the court subsequently reversed that determination. … The trial court held a bench trial on February 21 and March 1, 2017.
During the trial, three expert witnesses testified: … Dr. Olive and Dr. Callaway diagnosed Barcroft with schizophrenia, paranoid type, while Dr. Parker diagnosed her with delusional disorder. But each of the expert witnesses concluded that Barcroft had a mental illness, and, based on that mental illness, she was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct at the time she killed Pastor Iseminger.
… While, the trial court found that Barcroft “clearly” had a mental disease or defect, the court concluded that she appreciated the wrongfulness of her conduct at the time she shot Pastor Iseminger based on … demeanor evidence … Thereafter, the trial court sentenced Barcroft to an aggregate term of fifty-five years in the Indiana Department of Correction with five years suspended to mental health probation. …
….
Here, the three mental-health experts unanimously agreed that Barcroft’s mental illness made her incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of her conduct at the time of the offense. … Nonetheless, where, as here, there is no conflict among the expert and lay witnesses, the trial court can still find a defendant sane at the time of the crime if there is probative demeanor evidence from which an inference of sanity can be drawn. See Galloway, 938 N.E.2d at 712.
… while demeanor evidence is often useful, “there are limits to its probative value.” … “as a general rule, demeanor evidence must be considered as a whole, in relation to all the other evidence.” Galloway, 9387 N.E.2d at 714.
….
In Galloway, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s guilty but mentally ill conviction for murder. … At his trial, the experts unanimously agreed that the defendant was insane at the time of the murder, and the testimony of the lay witnesses did not conflict with the testimony of the expert witnesses. In its opinion, our Supreme Court stated:
… However, when viewed against the defendant’s long history of mental illness with psychotic episodes, the defendant’s demeanor during the crime, as testified to by three eyewitnesses, and the absence of any suggestions of feigning or malingering, this demeanor evidence is simply neutral and not probative of sanity.
Id. at 715 (emphasis added).
Galloway is on all fours with Barcroft’s case. Here, the trial court found as probative of Barcroft’s sanity the fact that she had a motivation to commit the crime outside of her delusion; that she told a witness to leave; that she planned the offense in advance; that she waited for Pastor Iseminger; that she found a place to hide after the offense; and that she told Officer Mitchell that she did not intend to get caught. … However, when viewed in light of Barcroft’s long-standing and complex delusional system, the unanimous opinions of the three experts, each of whom took Barcroft’s behavior during the incident into account, and in the absence of any evidence of malingering, the demeanor evidence relied on by the trial court simply had no probative value on the question of her sanity.
….
… Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment that Barcroft is guilty but mentally ill and remand for the trial court to enter a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Kirsch, J., concurs.
Brown, J., dissents with separate opinion.
Brown, Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority as to its finding that the evidence of probative value leads only to the conclusion that Barcroft was insane, or unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct, at the time of the offense.
Though it is undisputed that Barcroft is mentally ill, her demeanor, behavior, and statements before, during, and immediately after the crime, are probative and supportive of a reasonable inference of sanity. …
This Court should not invade the factfinder’s determinations, and accordingly I would conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that Barcroft failed to prove her insanity defense. …
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent and would affirm the trial court’s finding that Barcroft was guilty but mentally ill.