Everyday when the sun goes down, hundreds
of millions people in the United States go to sleep. For most of those people,
the act of sleeping occurs normally and they awaken the next morning to
continue living productive lives. However, nearly seventy-five percent of adult Americans experience some form of a sleep disorder
at least a few nights per week. Sleepwalking is one such disorder. The
prevalence of sleepwalking in the general adult population is
between one and fifteen percent.
Sleepwalking, which is also known as somnambulism, is
a sleep disorder where sleepers make their way out of their beds and perform
various actions while still asleep. In adults, sleepwalking is thought be
correlated to an underlying psychological disorder, but this has yet to be confirmed.
Sleepwalkers committing crimes is not unheard of. For instance, in Massachusetts v. Tirell, Albert Tirell stood accused of killing
a prostitute and setting fire to the brothel and raised sleepwalking as a
defense. In Fain v. Commonwealth, the defendant was asleep in a lobby and
shot a porter who attempted to awaken him. In the 1987 case of Regina v. Parks, a man with a strong family history of
parasomnia went to sleep, arose from bed, drove to his in-laws’ home, and
attacked them. An example of a more recent sleepwalking crime was observed in 2011, where a judge recently accepted the defendant’s
sleepwalking disorder defense and found him not guilty of assault.
Crimes committed during episodes of
sleepwalking intersect with the criminal justice system because of criminal law
philosophies on culpability. A criminal conviction requires both criminal
action and criminal mental intent. “Generally, for a criminal defendant to be held
culpable, the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed the act
voluntarily. The basic premise of sleepwalking defenses is that sleepwalkers are not aware of
their actions, and thus, should not be held culpable for actions beyond their
control.”
Although rarely raised in American court,
the sleepwalking defense has been brought forth in three forms: automatism, unconsciousness, and
insanity. Automatism assumes that a sleepwalker’s bodily
motions are beyond the sleepwalker’s waking control. The unconsciousness defense assumes that sleepwalkers are
not capable of criminal intent because their minds are asleep and therefore
lack the mental capacity to commit a crime.
An insanity defense to crimes committed during a
sleepwalking episode argues that the defendant has a mental disease that prevents
him from being cognitively aware of his actions and control those actions
during the time of the offense.
Various jurisdictions across the United
States will accept the sleepwalking defense under one of the aforementioned
forms. Additionally, courts also must determine which party must bear the burden of proving that a sleepwalking episode
occurred. Some courts such as the Kentucky Court of Appeals and the Supreme
Court of Georgia require that a sleepwalking defense be used as an affirmative defense. Some jurisdictions, such as the Supreme
Court of Wyoming and the Court of Appeals of North Carolina, place the burden
of disproving a defendant’s claim of sleepwalking on the prosecution.
As a practitioner, regardless of whether
you are prosecuting or defending a case with a sleepwalking component, one
should first research whether this defense is recognized in their particular
jurisdiction and which party assumes the burden. Sleepwalking as a defense is
not a carte blanche defense. There are hurdles to pass in order to both
successfully present and disprove a sleeping disorder as a defense. These
hurdles lie in the medical science and additional factors surrounding
sleepwalking. Defense attorneys need to make use of a defendant’s medical
history related to sleepwalking episodes. This includes showing sleepwalking
patterns, a family history of sleepwalking, environmental stressors, drug and
alcohol use, and other medical conditions that are associated with
sleepwalking. Prosecutors may attempt to point out that current medical
information does support the grouping of sleepwalking into an automatism and unconsciousness defense. These prosecutors may argue that since
sleepwalking episodes may be reduced through lifestyle changes, sleepwalking is
not completely beyond the sleepwalker’s control. Most of all, practitioners on
both sides must keep an eye on this issue. The practitioner that snoozes will
lose because the progress made in this area through medical science and
research will directly impact the criminal justice system.
By Stephane Plantin
Senior Editor, Criminal Law Practitioner
Photo by Herzi Pinki via Wikimedia
Commons
No comments:
Post a Comment