State v. Bigelow, 931 N.W.2d 842

Defendant Shannon D. Bigelow ingested methamphetamine, was taken to a hospital, and was injected with Haldol, Ativan, and Benadryl; after the injections he became agitated and assaulted a hospital security officer and then fled.
A responding deputy subdued Bigelow ten minutes later; the deputy testified Bigelow was completely compliant immediately upon police contact.
Bigelow claimed an insanity defense and presented Dr. Klaus Hartmann, who testified that Bigelow’s behavior was due to the effects of the three hospital-administered drugs (a temporary, drug-induced impairment) and not a mental disease or defect; Hartmann opined Bigelow “did not know what he was doing” due to the drugs but declined to call it a mental disorder.
The State moved to preclude an insanity instruction; the district court found the evidence did not show a mental disease/defect and granted the motion, but gave an instruction covering both voluntary and involuntary intoxication (neither party objected to that instruction).
The jury convicted Bigelow of third degree assault on an officer; the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the evidence did not support an insanity instruction but did support an intoxication instruction (including involuntary intoxication) which was correctly given.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence warranted an insanity instruction	State: evidence did not show mental disease/defect; insanity instruction should be excluded	Bigelow: involuntary intoxication from hospital drugs produced legal insanity and thus warranted an insanity instruction	Court: refused insanity instruction—evidence showed drug "effects/impairment," not a mental disease/defect required for insanity
Whether involuntary intoxication can support insanity	State: insanity requires mental disease/defect regardless of cause	Bigelow: Neb. law permits insanity based on involuntary intoxication (temporary)	Court: did not need to decide general rule; here evidence did not prove disease/defect, so insanity unavailable
Whether intoxication instruction was warranted	State: intoxication (voluntary or involuntary) supported by evidence; instruction appropriate	Bigelow: objected to intoxication instruction as substitute for insanity instruction	Court: intoxication instruction (voluntary excluded; involuntary available if proven by clear and convincing evidence) was warranted and properly instructed
Whether the intoxication instruction correctly stated law	State: instruction conformed to §29-122 and common law standards	Bigelow: objected to use of intoxication instruction in lieu of insanity instruction	Court: instruction correctly stated law, was not misleading, and adequately covered issues supported by evidence

State v. Mann, 302 Neb. 804 (standard of review and instruction prejudice inquiry)
State v. Williams, 295 Neb. 575 (definition of insanity: mental disease or defect; inability to understand nature/consequences or difference between right and wrong)
State v. Dubray, 289 Neb. 208 (intoxication as factor negating specific intent under Nebraska common law)
State v. Hotz, 281 Neb. 260 (interplay of intoxication and insanity defenses)
State v. Hood, 301 Neb. 207 (intoxication issues and mental condition varieties relevant to intent)
State v. Vosler, 216 Neb. 461 (variety of mental conditions affect specific intent)
State v. Mueller, 301 Neb. 778 (refusal of intoxication instruction when only voluntary intoxication evidence exists)
State v. Abejide, 293 Neb. 687 (intoxication instruction refusals when evidence shows only voluntary intoxication)