State v. Bigelow, 303 Neb. 729

Background

Shannon D. Bigelow ingested methamphetamine, was admitted to an ER, and was injected with Haldol, Ativan, and Benadryl; after the injections he became more agitated and assaulted a hospital security officer.
A deputy later captured Bigelow after he complied with commands; Bigelow was charged with third-degree assault on an officer and later alleged as a habitual criminal.
Bigelow gave notice of an insanity defense; competency to stand trial was found. He presented Dr. Hartmann, who testified that the hospital drugs (not methamphetamine) caused a temporary, drug-induced impairment and that Bigelow “did not know what he was doing,” but did not characterize this as a mental disease or defect.
The district court granted the State’s motion to exclude an insanity instruction as unsupported by the evidence, but gave an intoxication instruction covering both voluntary and involuntary intoxication under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-122.
The jury convicted Bigelow; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review on whether the evidence warranted an insanity instruction and whether the intoxication instruction was proper.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence warranted an insanity instruction	Bigelow: involuntary intoxication from hospital drugs can produce legal insanity and therefore supported an insanity instruction	State: expert testified impairment was drug-induced, not a mental disease or defect required for insanity	Court: Refusal to give insanity instruction was correct—evidence showed drug impairment, not a mental disease/defect supporting insanity
Whether involuntary intoxication can support insanity	Bigelow: Nebraska law permits insanity based on involuntary intoxication or permanent drug-induced conditions	State: insanity requires mental disease/defect; temporary drug effects don’t suffice	Court: Did not decide broad rule; held here evidence did not show a mental disease/defect even if involuntary intoxication exists
Whether an intoxication instruction was warranted	Bigelow: objected to intoxication instruction (preferred insanity)	State: intoxication instruction appropriate given evidence of both voluntary and involuntary intoxication	Court: Intoxication instruction (voluntary and involuntary) was supported by evidence and properly given
Whether the intoxication instruction correctly stated the law	Bigelow: challenged instruction content	State: instruction tracked §29-122 and applicable standards	Court: Instruction correctly stated law, was not misleading, and adequately covered issues; Bigelow bore burden to prove involuntary intoxication by clear and convincing evidence

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hotz, 281 Neb. 260 (recognizes interplay between intoxication and insanity defenses)
State v. Dubray, 289 Neb. 208 (intoxication may negate specific intent but is not an excuse)
State v. Williams, 295 Neb. 575 (defines insanity defense elements requiring mental disease or defect)
State v. Hood, 301 Neb. 207 (intoxication as factor bearing on specific intent)
State v. Mann, 302 Neb. 804 (standard of review for jury instructions)
State v. Vosler, 216 Neb. 461 (variety of mental conditions affect specific intent)