Automatism
• A person commits an offense only if he voluntarily engages in conduct in violation of the statute defining the offense.
• [A]utomatism is a defense because automatistic behavior is not voluntary.
Schlatter v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1139, 1142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)
Definitions and interpretations of “automatism”
• Automatism has been defined as “the existence in any person of behaviour of which he is unaware and over which he has no conscious control.”
McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 106 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied(quoting Donald Blair, The Medicolegal Aspects of Automatism, 17 Med. Sci. Law 167 (1977))
Schlatter v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1139, 1142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)(quoting McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 106 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied)
See Black’s Law Dictionary ? (10th ed. 2014)(“Action or conduct occurring without will, purpose, or reasoned intention, such as sleepwalking; behavior carried out in a state of unconsciousness or mental dissociation without full awareness.”)
• [A]utomatism is a state a person enters, where, although he may be capable of action, he is not conscious of what he is doing.
Reed v. State, 693 N.E.2d 988, 992 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)(citing McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 106 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied)
See Schlatter v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1139, 1142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)(quoting McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 106 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied(quoting Bratty v. Attorney-General of Northern Ireland, 3 All E.R. 523, 527 (1961)))(“‘A seminal British case concisely described automatism as ‘connoting the state of a person who, though capable of action, is not conscious of what he is doing.’’”)
• Automatism manifests itself in a range of conduct, including somnambulism (sleepwalking), hypnotic states, fugues, metabolic disorders, and epilepsy and other convulsions or reflexes.
McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 106 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied
Schlatter v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1139, 1142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)(quoting McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 106 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied)
Reed v. State, 693 N.E.2d 988, 992 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)(citing McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 106 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied)(“[A]utomatism manifests itself in many forms, including sleepwalking, hypnotic states, fugues, metabolic disorders, and epilepsy and other convulsions or reflexes.”)
Exceptions to the defense
• Exceptions exist for conditions not deemed automatistic in nature. For example, some cases have held that the automatism defense is unavailable if the defendant suffers only from amnesia. We have no quarrel with that view. It is one thing to say a person acted involuntarily, and quite another to say that the person has no memory of the event.
McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 107 n.5 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied(citation omitted)
See Schlatter v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1139, 1143 n. 1 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)(citing and quoting McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 107 n. 5 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied)(“[T]here are exceptions to the automatism defense for conditions not deemed automatistic in nature, such as amnesia. ‘It is one thing to say a person acted involuntarily, and quite another to say that the person has no memory of the event.’”)
Presenting evidence of automatism
• Evidence of automatism is relevant to the issue of voluntariness.
McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 107 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied
See Reed v. State, 693 N.E.2d 988, 992 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)(citing McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 107 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied)(“Because the State must prove that a defendant engages in criminal conduct, voluntarily or by ‘act of choice, in a conscious mind,’ automatism is relevant to determine whether a defendant voluntarily commits an offense.”)
See also Schlatter v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1139, 1142 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)(citing McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 107 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied)(“The defense of automatism bears on the voluntariness of a defendant’s actions.”)
• Accordingly, at trial [the defendant] can call expert witnesses and otherwise present evidence of sleep deprivation and automatism within the confines of the Indiana Rules of Evidence. The State is entitled to call its own experts and challenge [the defendant’s] evidence as the adversary process allows.
McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 107 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied
Relationship to the insanity defense
• Like intoxication, “automatism may . . . be manifest in a person with a perfectly healthy mind.”
McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 108 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied(quoting Fulcher v. State, 633 P.2d 142, 145 (Wyo. 1981), reh’g denied)
• While automatistic behavior could be caused by insanity, “unconsciousness at the time of the alleged criminal act need not be the result of a disease or defect of the mind.”
McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 108 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied(quoting State v. Caddell, 215 S.E.2d 348, 360 (N.C. 1975))
• [W]e hold that [the defendant’s] evidence of automatism as pleaded does not need to be presented under the insanity defense.
McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 108 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied
• Automatism is simply a denial of one element—voluntary action—that the Legislature has required for most crimes. It is not a disease or defect within the meaning of IC 35-41-3-6.
McClain v. State, 678 N.E.2d 104, 109 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied
• For more information about the insanity defense, please review Insanity.