Case Conclusion Date: 03.24.1997
Practice Area: Appeals
Outcome: Successful appeal setting precedent that automatism based on sleep deprivation is not an insanity defense.
Description: When Mr. McClain attempted to present expert testimony that he could not have intended to commit a crime because of sleep deprivation, the trial court refused to allow the testimony unless Mr. McClain claimed the defense of insanity. Greg Bowes took an interlocutory appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court. The Court determined that defenses such as automatism based on sleep deprivation are not insanity defenses, and ordered the trial court to allow the expert to testify. The case can be reviewed at McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2D 104 (Ind. 1997).