Bonnifield v. Lewis
SimpleOriginal

Summary

In this 2014 habeas case, expert testimony described the defendant’s drug-induced psychosis from long-term meth use, but the court upheld his conviction, ruling California law bars insanity defenses based solely on substance abuse.

2018 | Federal Juristiction

Bonnifield v. Lewis

Keywords habeas corpus; insanity defense; substance use; expert testimony; Methamphetamine
Open Case as PDF

Case Summary

The 2014 habeas corpus case involved a defendant whose conviction was upheld despite expert testimony attributing his actions to a drug-induced psychosis resulting from chronic methamphetamine abuse. The court determined that, under California law, an insanity defense cannot be predicated solely on substance-induced mental illness.

Open Case as PDF

Case Summary

A 2014 habeas corpus case involved a defendant whose long-term methamphetamine use resulted in drug-induced psychosis. Expert testimony detailed this condition. However, the court sustained the conviction, citing California law that prohibits using substance abuse alone as a basis for an insanity defense.

Open Case as PDF

Case Summary

A 2014 court case questioned whether a defendant's long-term methamphetamine use, causing psychosis, could be used as a legal insanity defense. Experts testified about the defendant's drug-induced mental state. However, the court found the defendant guilty. California law prevents using substance abuse alone as a reason for an insanity defense.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

In 2014, a man went to court because he thought he shouldn't be in jail. Doctors said his drug problem caused him to be very sick in the head, but the judge said that wasn't a good enough reason to let him go free. California's laws don't let people avoid jail just because they were high on drugs.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

No. C 12-3857 PJH (PR)

Highlights