.png)
A woman accused of a Cortez a murder last year is seeking a not-guilty by reason of insanity defense.
But two expert mental-health evaluations disagree on whether Valerie Espinoza, 38, was insane when she allegedly killed 62-year-old Charles Chaves with a butchers’ knife on Sept. 19, 2013.
During a hearing Nov. 20, District Court Judge Todd Plewe balked at a request by public defender Justin Bogan to rule Espinoza insane.
“This request backs me into a corner, because there is a difference of opinion,” Plewe said.
Defense witness John Ragsdale, a Durango psychologist, concluded that Espinoza was insane.
But an evaluation by state witnesses Dr. Richard Pounds and Dr. B. Thomas Gray concluded Espinoza wasn’t insane.
District Attorney Will Furse said he agrees that Espinoza was insane at the time of the attack.
“The stipulation request is an example of common ground between the prosecution and the defense,” Furse said. “Espinoza has a long history of mental illness.”
Gray and Pounds, who ruled Espinoza sane, and are employed by the Colorado Mental Health Institute in Pueblo, where she would be committed if determined not guilty by reason of insanity.
Plewe said he was “uncomfortable” making an insanity judgment because the conflicting report may not come out at trial, denying a jury or judge key evidence.
“That is not justice for the deceased,” he said.
The 30-minute legal debate revealed the complexities of an insanity defense in Colorado. Public defender Bogan called the sane evaluation “flawed” and said Espinoza would likely go to trial if Plewe did not rule her insane.
“Whether or not evidence is entered on mental health would be a trial matter,” Bogan said. “The prosecution and defense are on the same page here: Ms. Espinoza was, according to Colorado law, legally insane when all this happened.”
Plewe countered that the agreement between prosecution and defense on the insanity opinion subverts the adversarial nature of the justice system.
“To have the prosecution present the same evidence as the defense is telling the community how you want this case to be resolved, and not let a jury or judge look at the same facts you’ve looked at to make that determination,” Plewe said.
Bogan disagreed.
“It’s a separation of powers issue,” Bogan said. “The court is wading into waters on what sort of evidence litigants should put on at trial.”
If Plewe denies the insanity request, Espinoza could accept a plea bargain, have a trial in front of a judge, or a jury trial.
“Part of my job is to make sure the system works,” Plewe said. “The law says the court must render a decision based on evidence presented at trial.”
Plewe offered Furse and Bogan the opportunity to present their argument more fully at a separate hearing. Whether or not that will happen is undecided.
A status hearing on the case is set for Dec. 18 at 1:30 p.m.
