Opinion ID: 1058740
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Intoxication and Settled Insanity

Text: Clearly, we have permitted the use of the insanity defense when prolonged, habitual, and chronic alcohol or drug abuse has created a mental disease or defect. We adopted the common law distinction between temporary intoxication and permanent insanity long ago. Drunkenness is no excuse for crime. Boswell, 61 Va. (20 Gratt.) at 872. However, a mental disease or defect caused by chronic abuse of alcohol or drugs will support the defense of insanity. Id. ([i]f permanent insanity be produced by habitual drunkenness, then, like any other insanity, it excuses an act which would be otherwise criminal). We have also commonly referred to this permanent condition as settled insanity. See Arey v. Peyton, 209 Va. 370, 375, 164 S.E.2d 691, 695 (1968). Although he does not use the term, settled insanity is what White claims as his condition at the time of the offenses. The defense of settled insanity is not new and it requires that the condition be produced over a significant period of time. See, e.g., People v. Travers, 88 Cal. 233, 26 P. 88, 91 (1891) ([S]ettled insanity produced by a long-continued intoxication affects responsibility in the same way as insanity produced by any other cause.); Fisher v. State, 64 Ind. 435, 440 (1878) (recognizing settled insanity defense where the habit of intoxication, though voluntary, has been long continued, and has produced disease, which has perverted or destroyed the mental faculties of the accused); State v. Riley, 100 Mo. 493, 13 S.W. 1063, 1064 (1890) (holding that long-continued habits of intemperance producing permanent mental disease amounting to insanity may relieve defendant of criminal responsibility); Cheadle v. State, 11 Okla. Crim. 566, 149 P. 919, 922 (1915) (recognizing settled insanity due to excessive and long continued indulgence in alcoholic liquors, technically called `delirium tremens'); State v. Kidwell, 62 W.Va. 466, 59 S.E. 494, 495 (1907) (recognizing defense of settled insanity superinduced by habitual and long continued intoxication). For more recent cases illustrating the same principle, see, e.g., Evans v. State, 645 P.2d 155, 158 (Alaska 1982) (recognizing insanity defense for alcoholic psychosis such as delirium tremens, resulting from long-continued habits of excessive drinking); Kiley v. State, 860 So.2d 509, 511 n. 3 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2003) ([T]he defendant must show that his long term and continued use of intoxicants produced a fixed and settled frenzy or insanity either permanent or intermittent.) (quotation omitted); State v. Clokey, 83 Idaho 322, 364 P.2d 159, 164 (Idaho 1961) (upholding instruction defining settled insanity as produced by long continued intoxication); State v. Smith, 260 Or. 349, 490 P.2d 1262, 1264 (1971) (recognizing insanity defense where excessive and long-continued use of intoxicants produces a mental condition of insanity, permanent or intermittent) (quotations omitted). [2] White was 28 years old at the time of the offenses. In his evaluation of White, Dr. Brock stated that White reported a significant substance abuse history. He reports rather heavy abuse of cocaine, alcohol, and marijuana, as well as occasional use of crack cocaine. By Mr. White's report, he had been using cocaine multiple times daily for at least the three months prior to his arrest on the current charges. Dr. Brock also stated that White: [H]as a history of one prior psychiatric hospitalization while in Louisiana. This occurred about three months ago. The records for this hospitalization were not available at the time of this evaluation. Mr. White reports that he was treated through use of Haldol, an antipsychotic medication, which would suggest that he was being treated for psychotic symptoms at that time. The lack of psychiatric symptoms prior to age 27 or 28 and Mr. White's description of rather heavy cocaine abuse at that time would suggest that he likely was experiencing a drug-induced psychosis at the time of that hospitalization. Mr. White discontinued his Haldol once he got out of the hospital and, by his report, almost immediately began abusing cocaine, marijuana, and alcohol (as well as ecstasy) again. After reviewing the medical files from White's treatment in a psychiatric hospital while in Louisiana, Dr. Brock informed White's attorney, Review of these records confirms my hypothesis that, at the time of his hospitalization in Louisiana, Mr. White was suffering from a drug-induced psychosis. This condition resulted from his abuse of cocaine, antihistamines and marijuana. Dr. Brock concluded that the now available medical records simply confirm that Mr. White's psychosis was almost surely the result of his substance abuse and not some other mental condition. Dr. Brock added, Again, while his drug-induced psychotic state may potentially serve as a mitigating factor, it does not, in my opinion, meet the criteria necessary for an insanity defense. [3] The requirement of proof of substance abuse of long-term, chronic, and habitual nature is consistent with the concern we expressed many years ago when we stated, Insanity is easily feigned and hard to be disproved, and public safety requires that it should not be established by less than satisfactory evidence. Wessells v. Commonwealth, 164 Va. 664, 674, 180 S.E. 419, 423 (1935). In order to establish the existence of a mental disease or defect caused by alcohol or drug abuse, i.e., settled insanity, White's evidence would have to demonstrate long-term, chronic, and habitual abuse. White's proffered evidence on this question was insufficient to establish a prima facie defense of insanity.