Lindsay Clancy and Insanity

Evidence has closed in the murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, the Massachusetts mother who has admitted killing her three young children before attempting to end her own life. With responsibility for the murders being stipulated, there is one final issue for the jury to consider: whether Clancy was criminally responsible at the time the crimes were committed.

Clancy argues she cannot be held responsible for her actions because she was insane due to postpartum psychosis. The Commonwealth disagrees.

Some background on the law might provide some good context. In Massachusetts, the Commonwealth has the burden to prove not only that a defendant committed the alleged offense but also “that the defendant was criminally responsible at the time that they committed the offense.” Massachusetts caselaw provides that:

“a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.”

Once a defendant raises the issue of insanity and presents at least some evidence in support of that theory, the Commonwealth must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane at the time of the crime.