Daugherty v. State

I concur in the majority opinion that the appellant’s conviction should be affirmed. However, this writer believes that the trial court erred in excluding testimony of two medical experts. The appellant attempted to introduce testimony of a psychologist and a neuropsychiatrist to rebut the State’s evidence that he acted with malice aforethought.

This Court has held in numerous cases, that where a defendant is charged with a crime which requires an element of specific intent, he may rebut or explain his intent and mental purpose required to constitute the offense. The defendant must be…