Opinion ID: 2257625
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Majority Opinion Answers the Wrong Question.

Text: ¶ 48. As noted in ¶ 9 of the majority opinion, the trial court asked this Court in its third certified question if the following is a correct statement of the law as it relates to the term mental disease or defect contained in 13 V.S.A. § 4801: The term mental disease or defect as used in 13 V.S.A. § 4801 includes a mental condition caused by the voluntary consumption of illegal drugs if the drugs activate a latent mental disease or defect, and as a result of that mental disease or defect the individual has lost capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct, or has lost the capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law, unless the individual knew or had reason to know that the drug would activate the illness. The resulting disease or defect must be recognized medically and must exist at the time of the offense, independent of any temporary intoxication or high that the drugs caused. It does not matter that the mental disease or defect was not permanent, if the condition lasted for a substantial time after the intoxicating effects of the illegal drugs had worn off. A mental disease or defect cannot be caused solely by the consumption of an illegal drug. ¶ 49. Instead of directly addressing this question, the majority leads off Part II of its opinion by saying [t]he final certified question asks us to determine whether defendant can present an insanity defense. . . . Ante, ¶ 18. In the end, the majority never fully answers the question posed but instead delves into the facts to show that defendant should not be able to raise an insanity defense under any circumstances. According to the majority, the claim that defendant was operating under a `fixed or settled' insanity at the time of the offense is contrary to the very meaning of the doctrine and its altruistic origins, and applying the doctrine here, to a crime committed while defendant was either directly under the influence or in the immediate aftermath of a discrete two-month period of using hallucinogenic drugs, would defeat the doctrine's meaning and underlying purpose. Ante, ¶ 29. ¶ 50. I recognize that we have on occasion, deviated from the general rule and decided issues on interlocutory appeal where the trial court had not properly certified the question but where the question is capable of resolution and has been fully briefed and argued. White Current Corp. v. Vt. Elec. Coop., 158 Vt. 216, 222, 609 A.2d 222, 225 (1992). But there is nothing improper about the certified question here. Except for making modifications to accurately state its legal position, the trial court simply posed the question proposed by the prosecution. Nevertheless, the majority ventures into issues that the parties, particularly defendant, have not even briefed. Further, the majority does so without even acknowledging that it has deviated from the certified question.