New Jersey Insanity Defense: A Key Appellate Division Decision

New Jersey Insanity Defense and Criminal Appeals

On December 20, 2024, the New Jersey Appellate Division, issued a critical decision in State of New Jersey v. Jeremy Arrington (Docket No. A-2662-21), ___ N.J. Super ___ (App. Div. 2024), addressing the evidentiary requirements for asserting the insanity defense under N.J.S.A. 2C:4-1. This case clarified that criminal defendants in New Jersey are not permitted to testify at trial about their own allegedly insane mental state without accompanying expert testimony from a qualified mental health professional.

Facts and Procedural History of the Case

The case arose from a gruesome incident on November 5, 2016, where Jeremy Arrington invaded a Newark apartment after seeing a Facebook post that made negative comments about him. He tied up, tortured, and killed several occupants, including children. The surviving victims identified Arrington as the perpetrator.

The State charged in a 29-count indictment with multiple charges for murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, criminal restraint, weapons charges, and other related offenses. Defense counsel argued that Arrington was not competent to stand trial, relying on the written report and pretrial testimony of an expert psychologist. After a three day competency hearing, the trial court  ruled Arrington was competent to stand trial, and rejected the defense claims supported by a psychologist’s diagnosis of intellectual disabilities and schizophrenia, and crediting the State’s expert testimony suggesting malingering.

Arrington was unable to retain an expert to present opinion testimony to support his insanity defense at trial, and thus sought to testify as a lay witness about his mental state at the time he committed the criminal acts without expert testimony. The trial court held, as a matter of law, that N.J.S.A. 2C:4-1 does not allow the insanity defense to get to a jury without expert opinion and barred the insanity defense. The jury convicted him of 28 counts, and he was sentenced to an aggregate custodial term of 375 years.

Insanity Defense Requirements Under New Jersey Law

The Appellate Division clarified that under N.J.S.A. 2C:4-1, lay testimony by a defendant is  insufficient to advance an insanity defense and is inadmissible under the Rules of Evidence. An insanity defense in New Jersey must be supported by expert testimony. The court emphasized that the statutory requirement of proving a “disease of the mind” necessitates specialized knowledge that lay testimony cannot provide.

The court traced this requirement to the M’Naghten test, (M’Naghten’s Case,8 Eng. Rep. 718 (H.L. 1843)), as codified in N.J.S.A. 2C:4-1, which provides that “[a] person is not criminally responsible for conduct if at the time of such conduct he was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.”

Constitutional Arguments and Procedural Considerations

Arrington argued that excluding his testimony violated his Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. However, the court rejected this claim, finding that the constitutional right to testify does not permit self-diagnosis or the presentation of uncorroborated insanity claims.

The Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of Arrington’s proposed lay testimony about his alleged insanity. The court reasoned that the term “disease of the mind” contained in N.J.S.A. 2C:4-1 requires a diagnosis by a qualified mental health professional, and not a defendant’s self-diagnosis lay testimony. Allowing jurors to consider complex mental health issues without expert guidance risks misunderstanding and speculation on a subject that is beyond the ken of the average layperson.

Key Takeaways for the New Jersey Insanity Defense

This decision reinforces the necessity of expert testimony for defendants asserting a New Jersey insanity defense. It underscores the importance of preparing for such defenses early in litigation and securing qualified mental health professionals to substantiate insanity claims.

The ruling affirms that criminal defendants bear the burden of proving insanity by a preponderance of the evidence and that expert testimony is indispensable for meeting this burden.

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929.

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.