Sprague v. State

We consider three issues to be raised on this appeal:

1. Did the trial court err in refusing to permit the introduction of testimony concerning the defendant’s history of epilepsy, to negate intent, in the first portion of the sequential trial ?

2. Did the defendant prove he was insane at the time of the offense?

3. Is the defendant entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice ?

Intent.

During the guilt portion of the trial, several attempts were made by counsel for the defendant to introduce testimony concerning the defendant’s history of epilepsy. Objections to such testimony were…