Psychiatrist rules out not criminally responsible defence for accused in murder trial

A forensic psychiatrist testified Friday that a Brandon man accused of killing his 71-year-old mother did not meet the criteria to raise a defence of not criminally responsible due to his persistent denial that he killed her.

Gabriel Paul Heymans, 47, is on trial for second-degree murder in the death of Maureen Heymans, whom court heard he shared an apartment with at 264 McDiarmid Dr. for seven years.

Crown attorneys Rich Lonstrup and Reid Girard called forensic psychiatrist Dr. James Christian Zinko to the stand in Brandon’s Court of King’s Bench.

Zinko met with Heymans twice in July 2024 to gather information on the accused for a court-ordered forensic report.

In the report, Zinko shared his opinion that Heymans was fit to stand trial and was ineligible for a not-criminally-responsible defence.

While creating the report, Zinko said he took Heymans’ psychiatric history into account, with the most notable portion being a traumatic brain injury Heymans sustained in 1998 from falling off a grain elevator while he was working in construction.

Heymans was 19 at the time of fall, Zinko said.

“After that fall, he had begun to experience deteriorations in his memory and ability to tend to some activities of daily living,” he testified.

Additionally, Zinko learned Heymans had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder in 2001, he testified, and had been admitted to the Centre for Adult Psychiatry in Brandon in 2002. He said Heymans displayed paranoia during that time and was ultimately diagnosed with marijuana-induced psychotic disorder.

Zinko described Heymans as calm, co-operative and polite during their meetings.

“One thing that did stand out was a restricted range of emotional expression … However, his thoughts were organized and easy to understand,” Zinko said. He added that Heymans said he wasn’t experiencing any visual or auditory hallucinations.

He said Heymans had a “fair insight” into his mental status and knew he sustained a head injury in the past but couldn’t recall precise details of the injuries.

Zinko said there was some evidence of short-term memory impairment, and his long-term memory was “quite variable.”

Heymans gave Zinko detailed accounts of his actions on the day of the alleged offence, he testified.

“Did Mr. Heymans deny killing his mother?” Girard asked.

“He consistently stated that he did not kill his mother,” Zinko said.

Zinko said he diagnosed Heymans with a major neurocognitive disorder due to a traumatic brain injury and specified that it was “mild,” meaning that Heymans had difficulty completing “instrumental activities” of daily living, such as managing his finances.

He also diagnosed him with cannabis-use disorder and stimulant-use disorder. He said he considered diagnosing him with a psychotic disorder, but Heymans didn’t meet the criteria.

Girard asked what Zinko’s opinion was on Heymans’ ability to raise a defence of not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder, specifically his major neurocognitive disorder.

“In the absence of a finding of guilt, his persistent assertion that he did not kill his mother would render any … NCR defence raised moot, and would render him ineligible for that type of defence.”

“Do you believe that Mr. Gabriel Heymans was able to understand the difference between what is morally right and what is morally wrong?” Girard asked.

“I think it is most likely that he was able to make that distinction,” Zinko responded.

Girard asked if Zinko believed Heymans would have understood that hitting his mother in the head with a hatchet was morally wrong. Zinko said it’s most likely he would have understood that.

Defence lawyer Bob Harrison asked whether Heymans had been prescribed any medication.

Zinko said he was prescribed Risperidone in April 2024 while he was in custody.

“He wasn’t on that before?” Harrison asked.

Zinko said he wasn’t, and as far as he knew he wasn’t taking any medication while living in the community. He said Risperidone is an antipsychotic medication typically used to treat symptoms of psychosis.

However, he said it is commonly used for people with major neurocognitive disorders to control behaviours and underlying paranoia.

Harrison referred to a point in Zinko’s report in which he said he didn’t change Heymans’ medication and asked if it’s because he thought it was important that Heymans continue taking the medication.

Zinko said there was some indication that the medication made Heymans more open to conversing, but he didn’t see any evidence of psychosis.

Harrison questioned Zinko on his opinion regarding a not-criminally-responsible defence, confirming that Heymans couldn’t raise that defence based on his denial of the crime.

Zinko agreed and said that since completing the report, he had become aware of more specific case law that does allow for the defence to be raised without an admission of guilt.

If he were preparing the report now, Zinko said he would extend that analysis.

Harrison asked if Heymans would need another assessment if he pleaded guilty or was found guilty.

Zinko said that there would be “room” for that, but he didn’t think it would be necessary.

“Given the nature of Mr. Heymans deficits, it is very likely that he would have known … the nature and quality and wrongfulness of the actions.”

He said there is always room for error in any opinion.

Following Zinko’s testimony, the Crown closed its case.

The trial continues.

» sanderson@brandonsun.com