This appeal from a conviction, after trial by jury, on a charge of Armed Robbery presents but one question: Was there sufficient evidence to warrant the jury finding that beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant was sane at the time he committed the robbery?

We have recently reiterated that the question of insanity is a question of fact not unlike other factual issues, which are to be decided by the trier of fact. Whenever such a factual question is appealed, this Court does not weigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of *660 witnesses. We look to the evidence on the issue most favorable to the state and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. When there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the decision of the trier of fact, the decision will be affirmed. Dragon v. State (1974), 262 Ind. 394, 316 N.E.2d 827; Moore v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 154, 293 N.E.2d 28; Majors v. State (1974), Ind. App., 310 N.E.2d 283.

The jury heard two psychiatrists testify that the defendant, in their opinion, was not legally insane at the time of the commisison of the crime. The jury also heard the proprietor of the robbed tavern describe defendant’s behavior during the robbery. Lay testimony on the issue of insanity is proper. Smith v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 187, 285 N.E.2d 275; Hill v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 601, 251 N.E.2d 429, Fitch v. State (1974), Ind. App., 313 N.E.2d 548. We can not disturb the jury’s legitimate finding that defendant was-legally responsible for armed robbery which he perpetrated.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

All justices concur.

Note.—Reported at 323 N.E.2d 227.