COA rules man is not guilty by reason of insanity

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Examining the issue of whether a defendant’s mental disease brought on by years of drinking could support an insanity defense, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded the man’s psychosis was a mental defect under Indiana Code and he should have been found not guilty by reason of insanity.

In John R. Berry, IV v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-1008-CR-536, John Berry IV appealed his conviction of Class A felony attempted murder following a bench trial. The charge stemmed from his attack on Tony Monday, who was at a house Berry and his father went to in order to help repair it. At the house, Berry picked up a hammer and began attacking Monday, telling Monday he was going to kill him. After the attack, Berry’s father noticed that Berry was staring off into space and seemed out of it.

Berry was a longtime alcoholic and was diagnosed in 1999 with bipolar disorder. He also sometimes suffers from seizures and hallucinations and becomes psychotic when withdrawing from alcohol.

The trial court found Berry was sane at the time of the attack, and his conduct and comments surrounding the attack showed he knew of the wrongful nature of his actions. The judge also concluded the psychotic symptoms he displayed were brought on by his voluntary abuse of alcohol rather than his bipolar disorder or other mental disease or defect. Berry drank heavily on the Saturday before the attack, which happened on a Monday.

In order to be found not responsible by reason of insanity at the time of the crime, Berry had to prove that he suffers from a mental disease or defect and the disease or defect rendered him unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct at the time of the offense. There’s no issue that Berry was suffering a mental disease or defect at the time of the attack, but questions arose as to whether he was intoxicated during the attack or whether the alcohol use caused his psychotic symptoms.  Judge Terry Crone pointed out that I.C. 35-41-3-6 on NRI requires only that a defendant suffer a mental disease or defect and doesn’t set forth any constraints regarding the source or cause of such disease or defect.

There was no evidence that Berry appeared or acted in an intoxicated manner at the time of the assault, so Indiana Code 35-41-2-5 is inapplicable, wrote Judge Crone. The state cited that statute to say that since Berry had voluntarily drank a few days earlier, intoxication can’t excuse his responsibility for the attack.

The COA then delved into Indiana caselaw dating back to 1878 that has held a defendant who manifests a mental disease or defect caused by prolonged and chronic alcohol abuse that renders him unable to distinguish right from wrong isn’t responsible for a crime committed while in that condition, what is now called “settled” insanity. There hasn’t been any caselaw exactly on point to this case, but the judges decided that Berry’s case falls squarely within the doctrine of settled insanity.

They also found that Berry wasn’t able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct, the other requirement to be found NRI. His conduct showed he knew what he was doing when he attacked Monday, but the evidence doesn’t support a reasonable inference of sanity.

The appellate court remanded with instructions to enter a finding of NRI and for further proceedings required by statute, such as civil commitment proceedings.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?