State v. Brennauer
993 N.W.2d 305
Neb.2023Background
- On December 29, 2018, police responded to Christopher Brennauer at his apartment after reports he was suicidal and holding a knife; an officer was stabbed and Brennauer was shot and taken to the hospital.
- Brennauer has a long history of serious mental illness (schizoaffective disorder/bipolar type) and chronic substance use; he had previously been found not responsible by reason of insanity for an unrelated offense.
- Experts agreed Brennauer had a mental disease and was psychotic at the time of the incident but disputed whether he lacked capacity (M’Naghten second prong) and whether his deficits were caused by voluntary intoxication, medication noncompliance, or settled mental illness.
- The State requested and the court gave a jury instruction mirroring Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203(4) (insanity excludes any temporary condition proximately caused by voluntary intoxication) and a proximate-cause definition; the court did not give a separate instruction on settled (protracted) insanity.
- The jury convicted on four felony counts and the district court imposed lengthy consecutive sentences; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted review and ordered supplemental briefing on the effect of § 29-2203(4).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Brennauer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of § 29-2203(4) on insanity defense | § 29-2203(4) bars insanity where a defendant’s temporary condition was proximately caused by voluntary intoxication; here substance use initiated/exacerbated the condition so insanity is precluded | § 29-2203(4) should not be read to bar a settled or protracted intoxication-produced insanity; statute should not displace settled-insanity doctrine | § 29-2203(4) codifies existing precedent that voluntary intoxication (temporary insanity) is not a mental disease/defect, but it does not abolish the settled-insanity doctrine arising from prolonged substance-induced or other non‑self‑induced conditions |
| Adequacy of jury instructions (temporary intoxication clause given without settled-insanity instruction) | Instruction tracking the statute was proper | Giving the § 29-2203(4) instruction without explaining settled insanity or distinguishing temporary vs. settled intoxication risked confusing the jury | Plain error: court reversed because failing to instruct on settled insanity (given the evidence and State’s theory) could have misled jurors and prejudiced Brennauer’s rights |
| Burden of proof on proximate cause / intoxication (who must prove intoxication was proximate cause) | State implied proximate cause of intoxication could negate insanity (suggesting State must show proximate cause) | Brennauer argued that, if intoxication was asserted to negate insanity, the State must disprove insanity or at least that intoxication was the proximate cause | Court declined to decide burden assignment on appeal (not necessary to resolve); left issue open for remand trial |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to sustain convictions | Even with experts agreeing a mental disease existed, evidence supported rejection of insanity because jury could find intoxication/proximate cause | Argued State failed to rebut insanity defense | Court did not reverse on sufficiency grounds; remanded for new trial because instructional plain error required vacatur (not because evidence was insufficient) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hotz, 281 Neb. 260, 795 N.W.2d 645 (Neb. 2011) (reaffirming that voluntary intoxication producing temporary insanity is not a defense; distinguishing settled insanity)
- Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (U.S. 2014) (discussion of proximate-cause principles)
- State v. Johnson, 308 Neb. 331, 953 N.W.2d 772 (Neb. 2021) (statement of M’Naghten-based insanity elements)
- State v. Matteson, 313 Neb. 435, 985 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 2023) (guidance discouraging separate efficient-intervening-cause instruction; prefer proximate/concurring-cause instruction)