People v. Voth, 312 P.3d 144

In 2012 Paul Voth fired gunshots and was arrested; he displayed visual and auditory hallucinations and was hospitalized. Medical evaluators suspected viral encephalitis caused a transient psychotic episode.
Voth pled not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI), the People initially stipulated, and Voth later sought to withdraw the NGRI plea.
At a pretrial hearing Voth sought alternatively to present an affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication, supported by Dr. Richard Pounds, who testified that a viral infection produced a disturbance of mental capacities.
The trial court ruled that Voth presented some credible evidence under the Garcia test and that a virus could constitute a “substance” under the involuntary intoxication statute, allowing the defense to go to the jury.
The People sought original review (C.A.R. 21), arguing the trial court erred by treating a virus as a “substance” under section 18-1-804; the Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a virus is a “substance” under the involuntary intoxication statute	People: a virus is not a "substance" that can cause legally cognizable intoxication	Voth: a virus caused a disturbance of capacities and qualifies as a "substance" under section 18-1-804	A virus is not a "substance" as a matter of law; trial court erred in allowing the defense
Whether trial court abused its discretion by permitting the involuntary intoxication defense	People: court applied erroneous legal standard by expanding “substance” to include viruses	Voth: evidence (physician testimony) met Garcia’s requirements to submit the defense	Court abused its discretion because its ruling rested on an incorrect legal interpretation
Whether Colorado recognizes temporary insanity under the insanity statute	People implied: N/A at issue here; court must clarify prior dictum	Voth (via expert relied on prior dictum): insanity must be permanent, so involuntary intoxication was appropriate	Court clarifies insanity may be temporary; insanity defense covers temporary or long-term episodes if insane at the time of the act
Whether Garcia’s four-part test governs submission of involuntary intoxication	People: Garcia governs and requires proof a substance was introduced into the body	Voth: Garcia applies but argued a virus satisfies its elements	Garcia applies; but first element (introduction of a “substance”) does not encompass viruses

People v. Garcia, 113 P.3d 775 (Colo. 2005) (sets four-part test for involuntary intoxication submission)
People v. Low, 732 P.2d 622 (Colo. 1987) (recognizes nontraditional ingested substances can support intoxication defense)
Bieber v. People, 856 P.2d 811 (Colo. 1993) (discussed in prior dictum regarding insanity; clarified here)
People v. Laeke, 271 P.3d 1111 (Colo. 2012) (procedural rule on NGRI pleas and prosecution concession)