BURLINGTON — Jurors weighing the murder case against Aita Gurung ended a third day of deliberations without reaching a verdict and sent two requests out to the judge — including one that left them with an unanswered question about the legal definition of insanity.
The 12 jurors have been asked to reach a verdict on charges against Gurung of first- or second-degree murder in the death of his wife, Yogeswari Khadka, and attempted second-degree murder for severely injuring her mother, Thulsa Rimal, on Oct. 12, 2017, in an attack with a meat cleaver at their Burlington home.
They are also considering his defense that he was insane at the time and, therefore, not criminally responsible for his actions.
During roughly 20 hours of deliberations over three days this week at Chittenden County Superior criminal court in Burlington, the jury has sent six notes with questions to the judge, including two on Wednesday. In all but one of them, they have asked to either play back testimony from the trial or to view body camera footage from the first responding police officers to the attack.
The exception was a note sent early Wednesday afternoon with a question related to the definition of insanity and how to apply it in this case.
To prove insanity, according to Vermont law, the defense must show by a preponderance of the evidence — meaning more likely than not — that Gurung suffered from a “mental disease or defect” at the time of the attack, among other requirements of the law.
“A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he or she lacks adequate capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of law,” the state statute reads.
According to the jury’s note, which was later read into the record by Judge John Pacht, the jury sought “clarity on the wording of the test of insanity, specifically, if at any point one lacks adequate capacity to conform their behavior to the requirements of the law, but has adequate capacity to conform at other points, is the standard met, assuming the mental defect disease requirement is met.”
Pacht consulted with both the prosecution and defense while the jurors were sequestered in another room, telling the attorneys that answering the question could potentially sow more confusion.
After calling the jurors into the courtroom around 1:45 p.m., he told them he could not give them additional information beyond what was contained in the jury instructions he provided on Monday morning.
The jurors later asked to hear parts of testimony from two doctors who provided mental health treatment to Gurung. And, according to their note to the judge, jurors then possibly wanted to hear portions of testimony of two other witnesses, including one who was the state’s expert witness as the prosecution sought to rebut an insanity defense in the case.
The jurors broke for the day around 4:15 p.m. Wednesday, with their requested playback of the testimony expected to start Thursday morning.
At one point Wednesday afternoon, outside of the presence of the jury, Pacht raised the possibility of asking jurors through a note if they are making progress in their deliberations.
That drew quick opposition from Assistant Attorney General Rose Kennedy, a prosecutor in the case, who said it was important to let the jury deliberate.
