☢ test - Í

S.E.2d 407) (2000) (expert testimony regarding defendant's psychological condition was erroneously excluded by trial court, where the evidence was relevant to showing that defendant had no knowledge of the child abuse committed by her husband, an issue which was ‘very different’ from the issue whether the defendant had the criminal intent to harm her son).” Accord, Thompson v. State , 295 Ga. 96, 757 S.E.2d 846 (April 22, 2014) (where defendant didn’t present plea of mental retardation, evidence of low IQ wasn’t admissible to show inability to know how to fire crossbow). McBride v. State, 314 Ga.App. 725, 725 S.E.2d 844 (March 12, 2012). Aggravated assault and related convictions affirmed; trial court properly declined to charge jury on not guilty by reason of insanity. “In this case, … McBride introduced no evidence of insanity, only lay witness testimony about generalized problems. Because he would not cooperate with the expert psychiatrist appointed by the court, McBride was not entitled to introduce his own expert, because ‘if a defendant wants to tell his story to a jury through the mouth of an expert, the [S]tate should have an equal opportunity to tell that story through the mouth of an expert.’ Motes [ v. State, 256 Ga. 831, 832(2) (353 S.E.2d 348) (1987)]. Further, while a defendant is not required to introduce expert testimony before a jury can consider his insanity defense, no testimony indicated that McBride did not know the difference between right and wrong when he committed the acts. ‘Since no issue of insanity was raised by the evidence, it was not error to refuse to submit the issue of insanity to the jury.’ Smith v. State, 180 Ga.App. 278, 279(1) (349 S.E.2d 26) (1986); see also Morgan v. State, 224 Ga. 604, 605– 606 (163 S.E.2d 690) (1968).” Alvelo v. State, 290 Ga. 609, 724 S.E.2d 377 (February 27, 2012). Malice murder and related convictions affirmed; evidence supported jury’s finding that defendant wasn’t insane. “The State presented the testimony of a forensic psychologist that appellant's efforts to clean up the blood and hide the body indicated appellant knew the wrongfulness of his actions, his statement to police that he acted in self-defense was a rational motive for appellant's escalating fight with Cooper, and that the expert saw no evidence appellant was delusional at the time of the crimes.” Page v. State, 313 Ga.App. 691, 722 S.E.2d 408 (January 26, 2012). Public drunkenness conviction affirmed; no due process violation in failure to provide defendant an independent psychiatric examination after state psychiatrists found him competent to stand trial. “An indigent defendant does not … have a constitutional right to ‘choose a psychiatrist of his own liking or to receive funds to hire his own.’ (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Callaway [ v. State, 208 Ga.App. 508, 510-511(1) (431 S.E.2d 143) (1993). Here, Page was provided with the assistance of three psychiatrists to address the issue of his competency. His due process rights were not violated because he was not entitled to choose a psychiatrist of his personal liking or to receive funds to hire his own. Callaway, supra, 208 Ga.App. at 510–511(1).” Accord, Lemery v. State , 330 Ga.App. 623, 768 S.E.2d 800 (February 12, 2015) (“‘The grant or denial of a motion for independent psychiatric examination lies within the discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned unless an abuse of discretion is shown.’ (Citation, punctuation, and footnote omitted.) Pullins v. State, 232 Ga.App. 267, 269(2) (501 S.E.2d 612) (1998).”). State v. Abernathy, 289 Ga. 603, 715 S.E.2d 48 (July 5, 2011). In defendant’s murder prosecution, trial court properly held that defendant received no ineffective assistance by counsel “failing to investigate and present evidence in support of a mental health defense.” Despite defendant’s extensive history of psychiatric treatment, “‘[m]ental abnormality, unless it amounts to insanity, is not a defense to a crime.’ Wallace v. State , 248 Ga. 255, 262(8) (282 S.E.2d 325) (1981). Compare Hall v. McPherson , 284 Ga. 219 (663 S.E.2d 659) (2008) (failure to present mental health evidence as mitigation in penalty phase of death penalty trial constituted ineffective assistance). To the extent that Abernathy contends trial counsel should have pursued a special plea of incompetency or an insanity defense, the record reflects that trial counsel, recognizing Abernathy's mental health problems from the beginning, sought an expert mental health evaluation within days of first appearing in the case. The court-appointed mental health expert concluded that Abernathy, though having significant mental health problems, was competent to stand trial, and Abernathy presented no expert testimony to the contrary. With regard to an insanity plea, the record reflects that trial counsel considered this possibility, having discussed it with Abernathy's mother, and rejected it. Given that such a defense would have significantly undercut Abernathy's assertion that he acted in self-defense, this decision constituted reasonable trial strategy. See Whitus v. State , 287 Ga. 801(2) (700 S.E.2d 377) (2010) (no deficient performance where counsel made reasonable strategic decision, after seeking psychiatric evaluation of defendant, not to pursue insanity defense which would have run counter to other defenses). Compare Martin v. Barrett , 279 Ga. 593 (619 S.E.2d 656) (2005) (conviction properly vacated where, despite knowledge of defendant's history of mental illness, counsel failed altogether to seek expert mental health evaluation or otherwise investigate the issue).”