Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Vinsonhaler was raking leaves when he saw D, enter the cul-de-sac in his neighborhood. Vinsonhaler thought D appeared 'a little disoriented and confused,' so Vinsonhaler asked D where he was headed. D said something which Vinsonhaler 'couldn't quite make out,' but Vinsonhaler still believed D was 'just kind of disoriented' and began to back up to maintain distance between D and himself. Vinsonhaler tried to get inside his house to call the police. Vinsonhaler thought he closed and locked the sliding patio door behind him, but he was not sure. Vinsonhaler heard a noise coming from the hallway. When he looked into the hallway, he saw D standing inside the house. D 'just stood there.' Vinsonhaler recalled telling Diaz, 'You don't belong here, you need to leave,' but D simply responded, 'No.' Vinsonhaler tried to flee and made it to the front door, and was standing with his back to D when he felt something grab him from behind. The next thing Vinsonhaler felt was what he 'thought was a pruning saw cutting my face.' In fact, it was a knife. D stabbed Vinsonhaler '[a]ll over'-on his face, 'around the neck,' and elsewhere, repeatedly saying, 'I'm going to kill you.' Both men wrestled over the knife for several minutes until law enforcement arrived and subdued D with a taser. Vinsonhaler was severely wounded but survived. Vinsonhaler required several surgeries on his hands, face, neck, and throat. D was charged with (1) aggravated battery, (2) use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime, (3) and resisting and obstructing an officer. D notified P of his intent to introduce expert testimony at trial. Dr. James Davidson was going to opine 'that D was delusional at the time of the offense and that, while D admits slashing and cutting Vinsonhaler with a knife, D did so because he believed Vinsonhaler was not a person, but an alien. P moved in limine to exclude the expert's testimony, arguing it was irrelevant, prejudicial, and advanced a prohibited insanity defense. The court denied P's motion, holding that the evidence was relevant to prove a mistake of fact defense or otherwise negate intent. P moved for a permissive appeal, which the district court denied. The State filed a permissive appeal, and it was eventually granted.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.