State v. Brennauer, 314 Neb. 782

Background

On Dec. 29, 2018, police responded to Christopher Brennauer after he threatened self-harm with a knife; during the encounter an officer was stabbed and Brennauer was shot and arrested.
Brennauer has a long history of serious mental illness (schizoaffective disorder/bipolar type) and long-term substance use; he had a prior not-responsible-by-reason-of-insanity (NGRI) verdict in 2003.
At trial both experts agreed Brennauer had a mental disease and was psychotic around the incident, but they disagreed whether his lack of capacity was caused by long‑standing (settled) illness or by intoxication/temporary effects.
The State requested and the court gave a jury instruction mirroring Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29‑2203(4) (insanity does not include any temporary condition proximately caused by voluntary intoxication) and also gave a proximate‑cause definition.
The jury convicted Brennauer on four felony counts and the court imposed consecutive lengthy sentences; Brennauer appealed, arguing (inter alia) instructional error and insufficiency of the evidence.
The Nebraska Supreme Court considered for the first time how § 29‑2203(4) affects the insanity defense, noticed plain error in the jury instructions, vacated convictions and sentences, and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Brennauer's Argument	Held
Effect of § 29‑2203(4) on insanity defense (does it bar insanity based on substance‑caused conditions?)	§29‑2203(4) shows temporary conditions proximately caused by voluntary substance use preclude an insanity defense; evidence of long‑term substance use supports that theory	§29‑2203(4) should not eliminate settled (protracted) insanity; statute is a codification of the rule that voluntary intoxication alone is not a mental disease	§29‑2203(4) codifies the longstanding rule that voluntary intoxication is not a mental disease for insanity purposes but does not eliminate the settled‑insanity doctrine; statute ambiguous in isolation but legislative history supports no change to settled insanity precedent
Jury instructions: giving §29‑2203(4) language and proximate‑cause definition without instructing on settled insanity or burden	Instruction mirrored the statute and was appropriate under the State’s theory; proximate‑cause instruction addressed causation	Instruction confused jurors by omitting settled‑insanity instruction and burden allocation, likely foreclosing a valid defense	Plain error: instructions were misleading given the evidence and State's theory; failure to instruct on settled insanity (and clarity on burden) prejudiced Brennauer and requires reversal
Sufficiency of the evidence to rebut insanity	Even if mental disease existed, the jury reasonably found substance use was the proximate cause of the temporary condition and rejected insanity	Both experts agreed on mental disease; State failed to prove lack of capacity not due to mental disease	Court held the record contained sufficient evidence to support the verdicts, but because instructional plain error required reversal, convictions vacated and case remanded for new trial
Admissibility of hospital statements (motion to suppress)	Statements were admissible and not involuntary	Statements were involuntary and Miranda violations	Court declined to decide on remand because resolution unnecessary given reversal

Key Cases Cited

State v. Hotz, 281 Neb. 260 (2011) (reaffirmed that voluntary intoxication producing only temporary insanity is not a basis for the insanity defense)
State v. Hood, 301 Neb. 207 (2018) (voluntary intoxication is not a mental disease or defect for insanity purposes)
Paroline v. United States, 572 U.S. 434 (2014) (discussion of proximate‑cause concepts relevant to causation analysis)
State v. Matteson, 313 Neb. 435 (2023) (advises against separate efficient‑intervening‑cause instructions; prefer proximate/concurring cause instructions)
State v. Dady, 304 Neb. 649 (2019) (harmless‑error and factors for reviewing jury instructions)