State v. Hinkle
200 W.Va. 280, 489 S.E.2d 257 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Unconsciousness, or automatism, is a defense separate from insanity that negates the voluntariness of a criminal act. Once a defendant raises the defense of unconsciousness, the State bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was voluntary.
Facts:
- For several months prior to June 12, 1993, Charles Rhea Hinkle had been experiencing symptoms including memory loss, dizziness, and double vision.
- On that day, after finishing his work shift, Hinkle went to a tavern where he complained of feeling ill, dizzy, and having double vision.
- While at the tavern, Hinkle drank approximately one-third of a can of beer.
- After getting a ride to his car, Hinkle began driving north on Route 2 in St. Marys, West Virginia.
- Hinkle's vehicle gradually crossed the centerline and traveled for about two hundred yards in the southbound lane without any braking or swerving.
- Hinkle's car collided head-on with a vehicle driven by Robert Barrett, causing severe injuries to both drivers and fatal injuries to the passenger, Charlotte Ann Barrett.
- A subsequent MRI scan revealed that Hinkle had an undiagnosed brain disorder in the part of his brain that regulates consciousness.
- A medical expert testified this disorder could have caused Hinkle to suddenly lose consciousness immediately before the collision.
Procedural Posture:
- A Pleasants County grand jury indicted Charles Rhea Hinkle on the charge of involuntary manslaughter.
- Hinkle was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court of Pleasants County.
- During the trial, the court denied Hinkle's motion to give a jury instruction on the insanity defense.
- The jury returned a verdict finding Hinkle guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
- The circuit court denied Hinkle's post-trial motions for a judgment of acquittal and a new trial, and sentenced him to one year in jail.
- Hinkle appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a jury instruction for involuntary manslaughter legally adequate if it applies a civil negligence standard ('should have known') to a defendant's knowledge of a medical condition that caused unconsciousness, rather than a criminal recklessness standard?
Opinions:
Majority - Cleckley, Justice
No. A jury instruction is not legally adequate where it applies a civil negligence standard to an unconsciousness defense; the proper standard is criminal recklessness. The court held that unconsciousness is a defense distinct from insanity, as it negates the voluntariness of the criminal act (the actus reus), not the mental state. Because voluntariness is an essential element of the crime, the State must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt once the defendant presents evidence of unconsciousness. The trial court erred by giving an instruction that allowed the jury to convict Hinkle if he 'should reasonably have known' of his condition. This civil negligence standard is incorrect; the jury should have been required to find that Hinkle actually knew of his condition and its potential dangers, and that his decision to drive constituted a reckless disregard for human life. The court found there was insufficient evidence that Hinkle knew or should have known his condition could impair his driving to such a dangerous degree.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes the defense of unconsciousness (automatism) in West Virginia as separate and distinct from the insanity defense. By categorizing unconsciousness as a challenge to the voluntariness of the act (actus reus) rather than the defendant's mental state (mens rea), the court clarified a critical legal distinction. This classification places the burden on the prosecution to disprove unconsciousness beyond a reasonable doubt, aligning it with other defenses that negate a core element of a crime. The ruling also heightens the required culpability standard for such cases from civil negligence to criminal recklessness, making it more difficult to convict individuals who cause harm during unforeseen medical episodes.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Hinkle