ILNews

Man loses insanity defense appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion County court correctly rejected the insanity defense entered by a man who suffers from bipolar disorder and alcoholism in his attempted murder bench trial, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled.

John Berry was on trial for attacking Tony Monday, a man helping Berry’s father renovate a house. The weekend prior to the attack, Berry drank heavily; the attack took place on a Monday. When police arrived, they found Berry’s behavior to be nonchalant and calm, he offered no resistance, and his speech was clear. He did give nonsensical answers as to why he attacked Monday.

A court-appointed psychiatrist and psychologist, as well as a psychiatrist hired by the defense, submitted reports and testified as to Berry’s mental status during the attack. None of the experts cited that Berry suffered delierum tremens, which is a type of settled insanity caused by the chronic abuse of alcohol, at the time of the attack. Two of the three experts testified that Berry suffered from bipolar disorder during the attack and didn’t appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct. One expert believed it was the consumption of alcohol that caused the attack.

The trial court rejected Berry’s insanity defense, but the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Berry suffered from “settled insanity” due to his prolonged and chronic abuse of alcohol.

“The intersection of voluntary intoxication and insanity is murky at best,” wrote Justice Steven David for the court. “Certainly, not all chronic alcoholics have destroyed their mental faculties to the point where they suffer from a mental disease as defined in Indiana’s insanity statute. On the other hand, consumption of alcohol prior to committing an offense does not automatically rule out the insanity defense, as the underlying cause of a defendant’s behavior could be a mental disease.”

The justices ruled it’s ultimately up to the trier of fact to determine whether the defendant’s conduct was the result of a diseased mind, regardless of the source of the disease, or whether it was the result of voluntary intoxication.

They agreed that “settled insanity” is a mental disease or defect as defined by the insanity statute, but found conflicting evidence in this case whether Berry suffered from such a condition.

There was credible expert testimony that his behavior was caused by the voluntary abuse of alcohol and not a mental disease or defect, David wrote, so the justices affirmed the rejection of Berry’s insanity defense in John Berry v. State of Indiana, 49S04-1110-CR-611.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT