ILNews

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.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. If the end result is to simply record the spoke word, then perhaps some day digital recording may eventually be the status quo. However, it is a shallow view to believe the professional court reporter's function is to simply report the spoken word and nothing else. There are many aspects to being a professional court reporter, and many aspects involved in producing a professional and accurate transcript. A properly trained professional steno court reporter has achieved a skill set in a field where the average dropout rate in court reporting schools across the nation is 80% due to the difficulty of mastering the necessary skills. To name just a few "extras" that a court reporter with proper training brings into a courtroom or a deposition suite; an understanding of legal procedure, technology specific to the legal profession, and an understanding of what is being said by the attorneys and litigants (which makes a huge difference in the quality of the transcript). As to contracting, or anti-contracting the argument is simple. The court reporter as governed by our ethical standards is to be the independent, unbiased individual in a deposition or courtroom setting. When one has entered into a contract with any party, insurance carrier, etc., then that reporter is no longer unbiased. I have been a court reporter for over 30 years and I echo Mr. Richardson's remarks that I too am here to serve.

  3. A competitive bid process is ethical and appropriate especially when dealing with government agencies and large corporations, but an ethical line is crossed when court reporters in Pittsburgh start charging exorbitant fees on opposing counsel. This fee shifting isn't just financially biased, it undermines the entire justice system, giving advantages to those that can afford litigation the most. It makes no sense.

  4. "a ttention to detail is an asset for all lawyers." Well played, Indiana Lawyer. Well played.

  5. I have a appeals hearing for the renewal of my LPN licenses and I need an attorney, the ones I have spoke to so far want the money up front and I cant afford that. I was wondering if you could help me find one that takes payments or even a pro bono one. I live in Indiana just north of Indianapolis.

ADVERTISEMENT