Judge expected to rule Portland stabbing defendant guilty except for insanity in death near Art Museum

Case centers on a 2023 killing and the legal standard for criminal responsibility

A Multnomah County judge is expected to issue a verdict of guilty except for insanity in a high-profile Portland homicide case involving a fatal stabbing near the Portland Art Museum in 2023. The anticipated outcome would mean the court finds the defendant committed the acts charged, while also concluding that, at the time, a qualifying mental disorder left the defendant without substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of the conduct or to conform the conduct to the law.

The case involves Jonathan Grall, who was accused in the death of Jonathan Bennett. Court records and reporting on the incident describe Bennett being stabbed in the neck outside the museum area on May 31, 2023, suffering a fatal wound. Prosecutors alleged the encounter was sudden, and investigators said the knife was discarded immediately after the attack.

What a “guilty except for insanity” finding would change

In Oregon, a guilty-except-for-insanity finding is not an acquittal. It is a criminal verdict that substitutes psychiatric commitment and supervision for a conventional prison sentence when the legal threshold for insanity is met. If the judge enters such a verdict, the defendant is typically committed to the Oregon State Hospital and then placed under the authority of the Psychiatric Security Review Board, the state body that oversees individuals found guilty except for insanity and determines when, and under what restrictions, they may be eligible for conditional release.

• Criminal conduct is still established by the verdict.
• The disposition focuses on treatment and public safety controls rather than a fixed prison term.
• Future release decisions depend on risk assessments and legal criteria, not a traditional sentence length.

How the court reaches an insanity-based verdict

Trials that end in a guilty-except-for-insanity ruling often rely heavily on mental health evaluations and stipulated evidence rather than a disputed account of what happened. The court must still determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the charged offenses and separately evaluate whether the insanity standard is satisfied at the time of the act.

In Oregon, the insanity defense turns on whether a qualifying mental disorder prevented the person from appreciating criminality or conforming conduct to the law at the time of the offense.

Broader context in Multnomah County courts

Recent years have seen multiple high-stakes cases in Multnomah County resolved with guilty-except-for-insanity findings, particularly in killings involving defendants with documented, severe mental illness. Such outcomes can be closely watched because they shift the case from the corrections system into Oregon’s forensic mental health framework, where supervision can be long-term and conditions of any release can be extensive.

The court’s final ruling will determine both the formal verdict and the next steps in custody and clinical placement, setting the legal course for how the case proceeds under Oregon’s mental health and public safety oversight system.