Was counsel constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate and present a temporary insanity defense based on voluntary intoxication?
At trial, the testimony varied on how much mind-altering substances applicant ingested prior to the murders. (7) A wide range of evidence, admitted from various witnesses, tended to show that applicant had consumed from one to eight doses of Rohypnol, and possibly also drank alcohol, smoked marihuana, and used cocaine. Rohypnol is a strong psychoactive drug, and witnesses testified that applicant appeared to be “incoherent,” “high,” “tripping,” “freaking out,” and that he “looked crazy” after the murders. But in his confession to police, applicant denied using drugs or alcohol on the night of the murders. In support of his argument that counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present a mitigation case based on temporary insanity, applicant includes, as an exhibit to his writ application, a statement from J. Thomas Payte, M.D. Dr. Payte concluded that: a defense based upon temporary insanity due to drug intoxication would have been viable given the substance with which [s
Related Questions
- Was counsel constitutionally ineffective for failing to investigate and present a temporary insanity defense based on voluntary intoxication?
- Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to character evidence?
- USER ACCOUNTS – Does the system user account lockout/temporary disable based upon failed login attempts?
