## Facts

- Barbara Curry crossed the center line while driving and collided with an oncoming truck, killing the truck driver.
- The state charged Curry with negligent vehicular homicide under R.C. 2903.07(A) for negligently causing another’s death while operating a motor vehicle.
- Ohio law defines criminal negligence as a “substantial lapse from due care” causing a failure to perceive or avoid a risk. R.C. 2901.22(D).
- Curry pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
- At a bench trial, Curry presented evidence that she was emotionally distraught from marital separation, had not slept for three days, and appeared to be “in a daze.”
- A psychiatrist testified that Curry had a “disorganization of thought” and was incapable of appreciating the criminality of her conduct.
- The trial court rejected the insanity defense, characterizing Curry’s condition as tied to self-imposed sleep deprivation and personal stress, and found her guilty.
- The court of appeals reversed, concluding that insanity was a defense to the charge and that Curry had established it.

## Issues

1. Whether legal insanity is a defense to negligent vehicular homicide, an offense defined in terms of negligence.
2. If insanity is a defense, whether Curry proved insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio held that insanity may be a defense to any crime, including crimes defined by negligence.
- The court held that Curry did not prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial court’s judgment of conviction.

## Legal Principles

- Insanity may be a defense to any crime regardless of whether the offense requires purposeful, knowing, reckless, or negligent conduct.
- Ohio’s insanity doctrine concerns criminal responsibility and “free agency,” not merely negation of an offense’s mens rea element.
- The defendant bears the burden to establish insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The trier of fact may reject expert testimony on insanity and weigh whether the claimed impairment reflects legal insanity rather than transient, situational, or self-induced impairment.

## Conclusion

The court recognized insanity as a potentially available defense to negligence-based offenses, including negligent vehicular homicide, but reinstated Curry’s conviction because the trial judge reasonably found she failed to prove legal insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.


State v. Curry, 45 Ohio St. 3d 109, 543 N.E.2d 1228 (Ohio 1989)