Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): drug use. For example, in People v. Conrad, the intermediate appellate court of Michigan concluded that a defendant who used PCP four or five times in the two weeks before committing a murder could invoke a settled insanity defense. 148 Mich.App. 433, 385 N.W.2d 277, 280 (1986). The court held that “a ‘settled condition of insanity caused by drug abuse, even if temporary in nature, may nevertheless be legal insanity if the condition was not limited merely to periods of intoxication.” Id. See also Porreca v. State, 49 Md.App. 522, 433 A.2d 1204, 1208 (1981). In People v. Kelly, 10 Cal.3d 565, 111 Cal.Rptr. 171, 516 P.2d 875, 876-77 (1973), the Supreme Court of California upheld a similar statement of settled insanity. See also State v. Smith, 260 Or. 349, 490 P.2d 1262, 1264 (1971) (<HOLDING>); Kiley v. State, 860 So.2d 509, 511 n. 3 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense (B) holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge (C) holding that denigrating insanity defense was inappropriate (D) holding that the 1994 amendments changed the burden of proof for the defense of insanity (E) recognizing a settled insanity defense where use of intoxicants were deemed to produce insanity either permanent or intermittent at the time of the offense
Output (English): holding that the 1994 amendments changed the burden of proof for the defense of insanity