Dimauro v

State, 185 Ga. App. 524, 364 S.E.2d 900 (1988). Defendant failed to prove insanity at the time of the crime. — See Tarver v. State, 186 Ga. App. 905, 368 S.E.2d 828 (1988); Mitchell v. State, 187 Ga. App. 40, 369 S.E.2d 487, cert. denied, 187 Ga. App. 908, 369 S.E.2d 487 (1988); Levin v. State, 222 Ga. App. 123, 473 S.E.2d 582 (1996). There was evidence from which a rational trier of fact could have found that the defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime because the state presented the testimony of a forensic psychologist that the defendant’s efforts to clean up the blood and hide the body indicated that the defendant knew the wrongfulness of the defendant’s actions, that the defendant’s statement to police that the defendant acted in self-defense was a rational motive for the defendant’s escalating fight with the victim, and that there was no evidence that the defendant was delusional at the time of the crimes. Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 724 S.E.2d 377 (2012). Because the defendant failed to present any evidence from which a jury could conclude that the defendant did not know right from wrong when the defendant committed the criminal acts, the trial court did not err in declining to charge the jury pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 17-7131(b)(1)(C) that the defendant could be found not guilty by reason of insanity under O.C.G.A. § 16-3-2; the defendant introduced no evidence of insanity, only lay witness testimony about generalized problems. McBride v. State, 314 Ga. App. 725, 725 S.E.2d 844 (2012). Prejudice not shown by trial counsel’s failure to call expert. — Even if trial counsel were ineffective in not calling 243 Application (Cont’d) a psychologist to testify for the defense that the defendant was incompetent to stand trial and that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime under O.C.G.A. §§ 16-3-2 and 16-3-3, the defense expert’s testimony would not have changed the outcome; the defense expert’s opinion was contradicted by a second expert, whose opinion was based on an evaluation over an extended period of time as opposed to the defense expert’s evaluation of less than one day, and by testimony of the defendant and trial counsel that the defendant understood the basis of the charges and the nature of the proceedings and assisted in preparing the defense. Wallin v. State, 285 Ga. App. 377, 646 S.E.2d 484 (2007). There is no constitutional right to mental examination, absent reason- 16-3-2 able showing of need therefor, as there is a basic presumption of sanity. Roach v. Mauldin, 277 F. Supp. 54 (N.D. Ga. 1967). Failure to plead insanity defense. — Defendant was properly convicted of terroristic threats in violation of O.C.G.A. § 16-11-37(a) because the jury was presented with sufficient evidence by which to find that the defendant intended to terrorize officers by communicating a threat to blow up the defendant’s home using propane; although there was testimony that the defendant suffered from a history of mental illness, the defendant did not plead the affirmative defense of insanity, and the issue of the defendant’s criminal intent was a question of fact for the jury, which was presented with sufficient evidence to establish the requisite criminal intent. Layne v. State, 313 Ga. App. 608, 722 S.E.2d 351 (2012).