## Facts

- Jason Johnston Jr. was charged with kidnapping, rape, gross sexual imposition, aggravated menacing, and felonious assault.
- Johnston entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and sought an evaluation of his competency to stand trial and his sanity at the time of the offenses.
- A psychologist examined Johnston and reported that he was competent to stand trial and was not legally insane when the offenses occurred.
- The trial court granted Johnston’s request for a second evaluation.
- The second evaluator, Dr. Richard Bromberg, concluded that Johnston was legally insane at the time of the alleged crimes due to an acute amphetamine-induced psychotic disorder and a chronic mood disorder.
- The state filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude Bromberg’s report and testimony to the extent his insanity opinion depended on psychological conditions caused by Johnston’s voluntary ingestion of drugs.
- At the admissibility hearing, Bromberg testified that Johnston ingested an overdose of Ritalin, some of his wife’s prescription medication, and alcohol in a suicide attempt.
- Bromberg testified that Johnston’s initial overdose was voluntary, but he claimed Johnston’s continued intoxication was involuntary.
- Bromberg also testified that, if Johnston had not ingested those substances, Bromberg would not have diagnosed amphetamine-induced psychotic disorder and would not have found Johnston legally insane.
- The trial court granted the state’s motion in limine and precluded Bromberg from presenting the legal-insanity opinion at trial.
- After the ruling, Johnston entered a no-contest plea and was convicted.
- Johnston appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by excluding his expert and that his no-contest plea was not knowing and voluntary.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by excluding the defense psychologist’s legal-insanity testimony where the diagnosis and insanity opinion depended on a psychotic disorder caused by Johnston’s voluntary ingestion of drugs and alcohol?
2. Was Johnston’s no-contest plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made despite the adverse ruling excluding his insanity evidence?

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by precluding Bromberg’s insanity testimony because the opinion was tied to a condition triggered by Johnston’s voluntary ingestion of intoxicants, which Ohio law does not allow as the basis for an insanity defense.
- The court also rejected Johnston’s challenge to his plea, concluding the record supported that the no-contest plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

## Legal Principles

- A trial court has broad discretion over the admission and exclusion of expert testimony; an appellate court reviews such rulings for abuse of discretion.
- Ohio’s insanity defense requires proof of a qualifying mental disease or defect; a condition that is the product of voluntary intoxication cannot serve as the basis for legal insanity.
- When an expert’s insanity opinion is dependent on voluntary drug or alcohol ingestion, the court may exclude that opinion as improper support for an insanity defense.
- A defendant’s no-contest plea is valid if the record shows a proper plea colloquy and an informed waiver of trial rights; the fact that a defendant pleads after an unfavorable evidentiary ruling does not, by itself, make the plea involuntary.

## Conclusion

State v. Johnston affirms a trial court’s decision to exclude an insanity opinion where the defense psychologist’s diagnosis and legal-insanity conclusion depended on a drug-induced psychosis resulting from the defendant’s voluntary ingestion of substances, and it further affirms that the defendant’s subsequent no-contest plea remained knowing, intelligent, and voluntary based on the plea record.


State v. Johnston, 2015-Ohio-450 (2015)