CBS 17 reported an Orange County judge found former UNC researcher Tailei Qi not guilty by reason of insanity and sent him to a state hospital.
The ruling followed hours of testimony Friday in Hillsborough, North Carolina. The station said Qi’s defense lawyers did not dispute that he pulled the trigger in the 2023 shooting.
UNC professor Dr. Zijie Yan was shot inside a campus office. The case turned on Qi’s mental state, including expert testimony about schizophrenia, hallucinations and delusions.
Two forensic psychologists described extreme symptoms in the months before the shooting. They said Qi believed Yan planned to kill him and that Qi needed to save a woman he called “Mun-cee.”
The testimony also raised a hard institutional question. Before the shooting, Yan felt threatened, told staff that Qi should no longer work in his lab and asked for help.
Forensic psychologist Dr. George Corvin testified that Qi confronted Yan about his delusions before the shooting. Corvin described Qi’s words as a final warning aimed at the professor.
“Mr. Qi spoke of this being a last chance to resolve this, saying if Dr. Yan did not admit what Mr. Qi knew he was doing, both would regret it.”
Corvin also described Yan’s response and his effort to remove Qi from the laboratory.
“Dr. Yan was quite reasonably concerned for his safety, he felt threatened, he communicated with staff that it was no longer appropriate for Mr. Qi to be working in his lab and was asking for help.”
The account does not identify which staff members received Yan’s warning. It also does not say what steps, if any, followed his request for help.
Those gaps deserve attention. The court ruled on Qi’s criminal responsibility, but the testimony also described a professor who recognized a threat and sought assistance before he was killed.
When a defense attorney asked whether Qi met the criteria for mental illness, Corvin answered, “Yes. His primary disorder is schizophrenia.”
After the shooting, experts said Qi remained focused on finding “Mun-cee.” Corvin testified that Qi showed no interest in his arrest and wanted help locating her.
The outcome therefore rested on insanity evidence rather than a dispute over who fired the weapon. That differs from proceedings built around an admission of guilt, such as the separate Jackson bribery case.
CBS 17 did not identify the judge or state whether a jury took part. It also did not report whether Qi entered a plea before the finding.
Those procedural details matter. A judicial insanity finding is not the same event as the guilty plea covered in the Bolton classified-documents case. Qi’s proceeding ended with a finding of no criminal guilt because of insanity.
The judge sentenced Qi to a state hospital after entering the finding. The account did not give the length of his placement or describe the terms governing his confinement.
It also left unclear whether “Mun-cee” referred to a real person, an imaginary person or another name Qi used for someone else. The psychologists presented the figure as part of the delusions that shaped his conduct.
The court’s final action must also remain distinct from an earlier investigative step, such as the grand-jury process involved in the John Brennan subpoena. Here, the judge reached a finding and ordered hospital placement.
The legal standard addressed Qi’s illness and criminal responsibility. It did not erase Yan’s death or the warning he gave before the shooting.
Justice must apply the law while protecting innocent people. Institutions also owe the public clear answers when a threatened man asks for help and tragedy follows.