Mother found not responsible for child’s death Woman to receive mental treatment in lieu of jail time for manslaughter

BELFAST – A jury of seven women and five men has found that Natachia Ramsey was not criminally responsible for the death of the infant son she smothered nearly two years ago while she was depressed.

The 26-year-old Rockland woman wept audibly when the verdict was announced and clasped the hand of her attorney, John Pelletier of Augusta. The jury’s decision means that rather than receiving a jail sentence for manslaughter, Ramsey will be admitted to the Augusta Mental Health Institute for continued treatment.

After ordering her committed to custody at AMHI, Justice Donald H. Marden told Ramsey that the jury and Maine law “has very appropriately taken into consideration your circumstances” and wished her well.

Justice Marden added “there is very little the law can do to punish you further than the punishment that you have already experienced.”

The jury reached its verdict after deliberating for approximately 11/2 hours Wednesday evening. During its deliberations, the panel agreed that Ramsey was in the grip of mental disease or mental defect when she took the life of 4-week-old Hunter Macarthy Ramsey.

Unlike a criminal trial in which a jury must find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a verdict in a case of criminal responsibility can be reached by a preponderance, or a tip in one direction or the other, of the evidence.

The burden of proof in such a case is carried by the defense. Defense attorney Pelletier argued throughout the trial that there was convincing medical evidence that Ramsey was more likely than not suffering from mental disease or defect when she smothered her son in her Searsport home on April 11, 1999.

“We are saying she is not criminally responsible. There is no such thing as not responsible,” Pelletier told the jury in his closing argument. “Natachia knows she is responsible for Hunter’s death. Natachia told you that she is responsible for Hunter’s death and she will live with that responsibility of Hunter’s death.”

During the trial, Pelletier focused on the testimony of medical experts who were in contact with Ramsey in the days and months after the killing. The psychiatrists and psychologists all agreed Ramsey was suffering from deep depression in the moments leading up to her son’s death.

Ramsey had a family history of depression. Both her mother and grandfather had committed suicide while she was in her teens. Her marriage disintegrated and her husband left her alone to care for her baby.

The experts testified that the depression had compressed and distorted Ramsey’s perception of reality to the point where she believed suicide was the only way out. Their diagnosis determined that Ramsey killed her son because she was afraid to leave him in the same world that had abandoned her as a child.

“At the time she did it she was ill,” Pelletier said. “She thought at the time it was the right thing to do. Her brain made her think that she had to die. Her reality was that she had no option but to kill herself and take Hunter with her.”

Assistant Attorney General Fernand LaRochelle also agreed throughout the trial that Ramsey was severely depressed at that period of her life. However, LaRochelle rejected the argument that hers was the act of a mentally defective person. He reminded the jury that Ramsey had called a local hospital before the killing and a crisis hot line afterward.

“She knew on this day that she could reach out to someone beyond Chris Ramsey [her estranged husband],” LaRochelle told the jury.

“You are here to focus on the issue of criminal responsibility, you’re not here to completely psychoanalyze her.”

After the verdict, LaRochelle commended the jury for its efforts and said he was satisfied with its finding.

Pelletier also expressed his gratitude to the jury.

“I am very pleased, Ms. Ramsey is very pleased,” said Pelletier.

“It was a case where Ms. Ramsey and I believed the law provided that she was not criminally responsible for this tragedy. The most difficult part was whether we were going to be able to present our case in a compelling manner and persuade a jury that criminal responsibility should not attach to these circumstances.”