On Point: 15. Not guilty due to instanity

State v. Donyil Leeiton Anderson, 2014 WI 93, 7/30/14, reversing an unpublished per curiam court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Gableman; case activity

Without explaining its reasoning, the supreme court declares that while the consumption of prescription medication in accordance with a physician’s advice may give rise to an involuntary intoxication defense under § 939.42, it can never create a mental defect that would sustain an insanity defense under § 971.15. The court also holds that mixing prescription medication with any amount of alcohol precludes a defendant from using either defense.

State v. Erick O. Magett, 2014 WI 67, 7/16/14, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision; majority opinion by Justice Prosser; case activity

The circuit court erred when it prevented Magett from testifying on the issue of mental disease or defect during the responsibility phase of his NGI trial because the court mistakenly believed that Magett was not a competent witness regarding his own mental condition and that he was required to present expert testimony on the issue. The circuit court also erred in dismissing Magett’s NGI defense without hearing any testimony during the responsiblity phase. However, a majority of the supreme court holds these errors are harmless, so Magett does not get a new hearing on the issue of mental responsibility.

State v. Charles R. Kucharski, 2013AP557-CR, District 1, 5/6/14, petition for review granted 9/24/14, reversed, 2015 WI 64; case activity

This is a nice defense win, and the majority opinion makes sense.  Kucharski shot and killed his parents and pled not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. The only issue at his court trial was whether he lacked the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and comply with the law. The uncontested expert opinions answered “yes.” So the majority granted a new trial.  The dissent took issue with the majority’s application of § 752.35, the discretionary reversal standard.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (composed by On Point)

Did the trial court err in instructing the jury that voluntary consumption of any drug precludes a finding of “mental defect” under § 971.15, where the defendant claimed he suffered from a temporary mental defect based in part on his use of a prescription drug as directed by a doctor?

Did the court of appeals erroneously exercise its discretion in granting a new trial in the interest of justice?

State v. Julius C. Burton, 2013 WI 61, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision; unanimous opinion by Justice Prosser; case activity

In a case of interest primarily, if not exclusively, to lawyers handling postconviction proceedings in state courts, the supreme court holds Burton’s plea withdrawal motion was insufficient to merit an evidentiary hearing because it failed to allege sufficient facts to support either the ineffective assistance of counsel claim or the claim Burton’s plea was invalid because of a defective plea colloquy.

State v. Vicente Paul Vento, 2012AP1763-CR, District 1, 5/21/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Invoking its discretionary reversal power, the court of appeals holds Vento is entitled to a new trial in the interests of justice on the issue of his mental responsibility under Wis. Stat. § 971.15 because the trial court applied the wrong legal standard and based its verdict on speculative testimony from an expert:

¶28      We agree with Vento that there is a substantial probability that a new trial would produce a different result because he met his burden under Wis.

Review of unpublished court of appeals decision; case activity

Issues (from the Petition for Review):

1.  Where a defendant has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, may a court summarily refuse to hold a jury trial on the defense if it determines that the defendant will not present sufficient evidence to create a jury question?

2. Did the court of appeals err in holding any error harmless where we do not know precisely what Mr.