People v. Garcia
113 P.3d 775 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The medical condition of insulin-induced hypoglycemia may constitute the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication if it causes a disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting in a lack of capacity to conform one's conduct to the law. Involuntary intoxication is legally distinct from the defense of insanity and does not require a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Facts:
- Steve David Garcia, Jr. was an insulin-dependent diabetic who had been treated for the condition for five years.
- Three days before the incident, Garcia's wife, Johnie Garcia, told him she wanted a divorce, and he moved out of their home.
- On the morning of July 11, 1999, Garcia injected himself with a large dose of insulin in anticipation of eating cake and ice cream at his daughter's party later that day.
- Following the injection, Garcia did not eat anything.
- While his wife was driving them in a van, Garcia hit her on the head with a hammer without speaking.
- After Johnie Garcia fled the van, Garcia pursued her, ultimately running her over with the vehicle before driving away.
- Johnie Garcia sustained a depressed skull fracture and other serious injuries.
- Garcia had a history of prior hypoglycemic episodes, and doctors had previously instructed him on the importance of eating after an insulin injection.
Procedural Posture:
- Steve David Garcia, Jr. was charged in a Colorado trial court with attempted first degree murder and first degree assault.
- Before trial, the defense notified the court of its intent to raise the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication based on Garcia's hypoglycemic state.
- The trial court ruled as a matter of law that evidence of hypoglycemia could only be admitted under a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI).
- Compelled by this ruling, Garcia entered a plea of NGRI.
- A jury convicted Garcia of attempted second degree murder and first degree assault.
- Garcia (appellant) appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, holding that the trial court erred by precluding the involuntary intoxication defense.
- The People (appellant) were granted a petition for a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of Colorado to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the medical condition of insulin-induced hypoglycemia constitute the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication, legally distinct from the defense of insanity?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Bender
Yes. The medical condition of insulin-induced hypoglycemia may, depending upon the particular facts and circumstances, constitute the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication, and this defense is legally separate and distinct from insanity. The Colorado statute defines intoxication as a disturbance of capacities resulting from introducing a substance into the body. Involuntary intoxication occurs when a substance is taken pursuant to medical advice and the person lacks the capacity to conform their conduct to the law. Because insulin is a substance taken under medical advice and can cause an altered mental state (hypoglycemia) that prevents rational thinking, it can legally constitute involuntary intoxication. The legislature explicitly distinguished intoxication from the 'mental disease or defect' required for an insanity defense, which involves different elements, procedures (e.g., a specific plea and mandatory psychiatric exams), and consequences (commitment vs. acquittal). The trial court's error in conflating these two defenses and precluding Garcia from raising involuntary intoxication unconstitutionally deprived him of the opportunity to present his chosen defense.
Dissenting - Justice Coats
No. While hypoglycemia could theoretically constitute involuntary intoxication, the defendant was not improperly deprived of a defense, and any error was harmless. The defendant's own evidence indicated his hypoglycemic state resulted from failing to follow medical advice by intentionally over-medicating and then failing to eat, which would make the intoxication 'self-induced,' not involuntary. Furthermore, the defendant was able to present all of his evidence regarding his hypoglycemic condition to the jury under the rubric of insanity. The jury's rejection of his claim that hypoglycemia prevented him from forming the required culpable mental state for the crime would have also precluded a successful involuntary intoxication defense based on the same facts, rendering any procedural error harmless.
Analysis:
This case establishes an important precedent in Colorado by formally recognizing that a physiological medical condition induced by prescribed medication can qualify as involuntary intoxication. It clarifies the boundary between the defenses of insanity and involuntary intoxication, preventing courts from collapsing the two and forcing defendants into the more procedurally burdensome and consequential insanity framework. The decision protects a defendant's right to present a specific, factually-appropriate defense and will guide future cases involving defendants whose criminal conduct may have been influenced by the side effects of prescribed drugs or other medically-induced states. It underscores that 'intoxication' is not limited to alcohol or illicit drugs but can arise from any substance, including therapeutic ones.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Garcia