D was involved in an altercation with police officers. D is alleged to have struck several officers before being subdued by police. D was charged with aggravated battery, two counts of battery against police officers, and two counts of resisting law enforcement. D filed a notice of intent to interpose an insanity defense. D's defense was sleep deprivation. Two days before the altercation with police, D flew from Japan to Indianapolis and did not sleep on the flight. D further claims to have slept just three hours in the forty-eight hours prior to his arrest. D withdrew his insanity defense, convinced after researching the matter that evidence of 'automatism' did not need to be presented as an insanity defense. The court granted P's motion in limine excluding 'any expert witness testimony expressing an opinion about the capacity of D to form criminal intent on the night in question' and 'any expert testimony regarding sleep disorders and/or dissociative states.' The court held that automatism was a 'mental disease or defect' within the meaning of Indiana Code § 35-41-3-6 and therefore had to be presented under the insanity statute. The trial court certified the following question for interlocutory appeal: 'Did the trial court err in granting the State's Motion in Limine, excluding evidence of expert testimony about the capacity of the defendant to form criminal intent on the night in question and expert testimony regarding sleep disorders and/or dissociative states, because the defendant had withdrawn the defense of insanity?'

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.