United States v. Hudek, 2:17-cr-00174

Defendant Joseph Daniel Hudek charged with one count of interfering with a flight crew (Count 1) and four counts of assault within special aircraft jurisdiction (Counts 2–5); Counts 1–4 are general-intent crimes.
Hudek consumed marijuana before boarding a flight and claims mental incapacity may have affected his conduct.
The Government filed a motion in limine to preclude Hudek from asserting a mental capacity defense (voluntary intoxication, diminished capacity, or insanity) as to Counts 1–4.
Hudek concedes voluntary intoxication and diminished capacity are not defenses to general-intent crimes but contends an insanity defense might be available and argues the Government must prove voluntary ingestion and causation.
Relevant legal shift: burden now rests on the defendant to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence (18 U.S.C. § 17); Ninth Circuit precedent limits relevance of mental illness when voluntary intoxication is present.
The Court found Hudek did not allege that mental illness compelled ingestion of marijuana and, under current Ninth Circuit law, precluded the asserted mental capacity defenses for Counts 1–4.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hudek may assert mental-capacity defenses (voluntary intoxication, diminished capacity, insanity) to general-intent Counts 1–4	Government: these defenses are inapplicable and should be precluded	Hudek: insanity defense may remain; Government must prove voluntary ingestion and that marijuana, not mental disease, caused incapacitation	Court granted: Hudek precluded from raising those defenses as to Counts 1–4
Who bears burden to prove insanity at trial	Government: defendant bears burden to prove insanity	Hudek: relies on older precedent (Henderson) to argue Government must prove voluntariness/causation	Court: current law places burden on defendant to prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence
Relevance of mental illness when voluntary intoxication present	Government: mental illness irrelevant unless it compelled ingestion	Hudek: argues mental illness, not marijuana, may have caused incapacitation	Court: absent allegation that illness compelled ingestion, mental illness is not relevant to general-intent offenses
Whether unresolved factual issues require trial on voluntariness/causation	Government: no factual dispute merits preserving defense	Hudek: claims unresolved factual questions about cause of incapacitation and voluntariness	Court: no credible allegation of compulsion; no factual issue for trial on these points

U.S. v. Henderson, 680 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1982) (addressed interplay of intoxication and insanity defenses under earlier burden allocation)
U.S. v. Burnim, 576 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1978) (held insanity defense may proceed only to extent incapacitation was due solely to mental illness when voluntary intoxication also present)
U.S. v. Knott, 894 F.2d 1119 (9th Cir. 1990) (clarified mental illness is irrelevant for general-intent crimes when intoxication was voluntary unless illness compelled intoxication)