People v. Voth

312 P.3d 144 (2013)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was arrested after firing several gunshots in a rural subdivision where he lived. David Arnold, one of D's neighbors, initially saw D shooting at a stack of wood pallets near D's garage. Shortly thereafter, Arnold, who was standing on the front deck of his home, called out to D and D fired his handgun toward Arnold. D then fired a second shot toward Arnold. Arnold called 911. While waiting for police officers to arrive, they heard more gunfire and then saw D standing on their front deck. Police officers intervened when D began shaking the front door knob in an attempt to gain entry to the Arnolds' home. D was taken to the emergency room. D was disoriented when he arrived at the hospital due to visual and auditory hallucinations. Doctors suspected that viral encephalitis was the source of D's psychotic episode, but were unable to reach a definitive diagnosis. D was charged with (1) attempted second-degree murder; (2) attempted first-degree burglary; (3) second-degree assault; (4) felony menacing; (5) illegal discharge of a firearm; and (6) reckless endangerment. D pled not guilty by reason of insanity. Dr. Richard Pounds diagnosed D with resolved delirium due to a general medical condition, sustained remission of alcohol dependence, and hypertension. Dr. Pounds concluded that D was presently competent but that D met the statutory criteria for legal insanity on the date of the incident. Dr. Pounds stated that the most likely cause of D's psychotic episode was an unidentified viral infection. Dr. Pounds rejected the possibility that the psychotic episode was the result of intoxication. P stipulated to the NGRI finding and requested that D be committed to a mental health facility. D attempted to withdraw his NGRI plea. D then raised the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication for the first time. Dr. Pounds now testified that he now believed that D met the legal criteria for involuntary intoxication. The trial court issued an oral order finding that D's offer of proof met the requirements for involuntary intoxication wherein a virus qualifies as a 'substance' under section 18-1-804(4). P petitioned this Court for a review of the trial court's order.