Advertisement

Defense Plans to Put Hilbun’s Sanity on Trial : Court: His lawyers concede that the former Dana Point postal worker carried out the fatal crime spree.

Share
TIMES STAFF WRITER

Defense attorneys concede that postal worker Mark Hilbun is responsible for a crime spree that left two people dead and terrorized Orange County.

But they contend that he was mentally incompetent at the time and plan to put Hilbun’s sanity on trial when the case goes before a jury in early 1995.

“At the time the acts took place--and long before--Mark Hilbun was a mentally disturbed individual,” said Deputy Public Defender Denise Gragg. “The evidence points to it.”

Advertisement

Hilbun, 39, of San Juan Capistrano, has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to 13 felony charges, including two counts of murder and seven counts of attempted murder.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Rick King, who is prosecuting Hilbun, says he believes Hilbun planned the crime spree and knew exactly what he was doing.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against the former postal worker.

During a hearing Friday, Orange County Superior Court Judge Everett W. Dickey appointed a psychiatrist and psychologist to evaluate Hilbun’s mental state.

Dickey also delayed the trial until February, 1995, because defense attorneys said they have other trial obligations and need time to prepare for the complex case.

Hilbun’s trial will be divided into three phases: guilt, sanity and punishment.

If jurors find Hilbun was sane when the crimes were committed, they must then recommend whether Hilbun should receive a death sentence or spend the rest of his life in prison without possibility of parole.

If found insane, Hilbun would be placed in a state mental hospital for psychiatric treatment.

Advertisement

Gragg said she is concerned because the insanity defense is not a popular one with some jurors, who may view it as a way for a defendant to get away with murder.

She said she and co-counsel Roger Alexander hope to find jurors who will remain open-minded and fairly evaluate the evidence in the case.

Advertisement