State can't use medication evidence to counter insanity defense in fatal crash, Georgia court says

San Francisco Chronicle​

6 days ago

ATLANTA (AP) — In the prosecution of a Georgia woman who caused a fatal car crash while suffering a psychotic break, the state cannot use evidence that she had stopped taking some of her psychiatric medications to counter her insanity defense, the state's highest court ruled Wednesday.
Michelle Wierson was driving her Volkswagen Tiguan at high speed through the streets of DeKalb County, in Atlanta's suburbs, when she hit a Toyota Corolla stopped at a traffic light. The impact pushed the car into the intersection, where it collided with another car. Miles Jenness, a 5-year-old passenger in the Toyota, suffered a traumatic brain injury and a severed spine and died days later.
Everyone agrees that Wierson caused the September 2018 wreck. Her defense attorneys filed notice that she intended to plead not guilty by reason of insanity, saying that at the time of the wreck she was suffering from a 'delusional compulsion' caused by mental illness that absolves her of criminal liability. The DeKalb County district attorney's office wanted to present evidence that Wierson had stopped taking some medication prescribed to treat bipolar disorder, arguing that the jury should be allowed to consider that she voluntarily contributed to her mental state.
The trial court said the state could use that evidence, but the state Court of Appeals reversed that ruling in a pretrial appeal. The state then appealed to the state Supreme Court, which upheld the intermediate appeals court's ruling.
An Atlanta-area psychologist with a yearslong history of bipolar disorder, Wierson believed at the time of the crash that she was on a mission from God to save her daughter from being killed, her lawyers have said.
Georgia law outlines two tests for someone seeking to use an insanity defense at trial. Both have to do with the person's mental state 'at the time of' the alleged crime. The first says a person shall not be found guilty of a crime if they 'did not have mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong' related to the act. The second says a person shall not be found guilty of a crime if the person acted because of 'a delusional compulsion' that 'overmastered' their will.
An expert hired by the defense and another engaged by the court found that Wierson met both of those criteria. Justice Andrew Pinson wrote in Wednesday's majority opinion that the law says nothing about the cause of the person's mental state at the time of the crime.
'Put simply, the plain language of the insanity-defense statutes gives not even a hint that these defenses would not be available to a person who has 'brought about' the relevant mental state voluntarily, whether by not taking medication or otherwise,' he wrote.
Robert Rubin, a lawyer for Wierson, has said that his client is 'haunted by the tragic consequences' of her actions. But he said in an email Wednesday that he hopes the Supreme Court ruling will allow the case to be resolved without a trial.
'The Georgia Supreme Court reaffirmed the basic principle that the focus of an insanity case is the defendant's state of mind at the time of the act,' he wrote. 'The State never disputed that our client was insane at the time of the accident. Its attempt to make this case about alleged medication compliance was misplaced and dragged this case out unnecessarily.'
A spokesperson for the DeKalb County district attorney's office said in a statement that prosecutors are committed to taking the case to trial and having a jury determine whether Wierson was responsible for her actions.
'While we are disappointed with the Georgia Supreme Court's ruling in this case, it will not deter us from pursuing justice for Miles Jenness and his family," the statement says.
Miles' mother, Leah Jenness, said her son 'should have just wrapped up sixth grade, but instead he's in an urn on our mantel.' She said the ruling has compounded her pain.
'Since Miles was killed, we have always believed that he deserves to have his story told,' she wrote. 'The idea of justice, for us, has always involved a jury being able to hear all the facts about what happened to him. As we understand the Supreme Court's ruling today, that's not possible now. It's hard for us to see how that's fair and just.'
In its ruling on this case, the Supreme Court also overturned its own ruling in a 1982 case that had created an exception to the insanity defenses. That case involved a man diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia who, against his doctor's orders, put himself in a highly stressful situation and ended up killing two people.