## Facts

- Jacob A. Sexton was charged with second-degree murder after attacking and fatally beating Atsuko Ikeda, a Japanese exchange student, in Winooski, Vermont.
- At the scene, Sexton approached police, lay in front of a cruiser, and stated he knew he had done something bad but did not know what.
- While in custody, Sexton described killing his cat earlier that day and going outside intending to kill a person; he described attacking a bicyclist and beating her until she stopped moving.
- Sexton reported extensive LSD use over the preceding months and described homicidal thoughts connected to drug-related beliefs.
- A court-appointed psychiatrist opined Sexton was insane at the time of the offense, diagnosing either schizophrenia-spectrum illness or substance-induced psychosis.
- The State’s expert agreed Sexton was psychotic but concluded the psychosis was caused solely by Sexton’s voluntary illegal drug use.
- Sexton gave notice of an insanity defense and sought to present diminished capacity evidence; the State moved to exclude both.
- The trial court allowed both (diminished capacity and insanity), and the State took an interlocutory appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant charged with second-degree murder may present diminished capacity evidence to reduce murder to manslaughter when voluntary illegal drug use was an essential causal factor in the defendant’s psychotic state.
2. Whether a defendant may assert an insanity defense when voluntary illegal drug use was an essential causal factor in the defendant’s psychotic state.
3. Whether second-degree murder based on “wanton disregard” requires a mental state for which diminished capacity evidence from voluntary intoxication may be admitted.

## Decision

- The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the pretrial ruling allowing Sexton to present diminished capacity evidence to contest the mens rea for second-degree murder and seek conviction of a lesser homicide offense.
- The court reversed the pretrial ruling allowing Sexton to present an insanity defense where his psychosis was essentially caused by voluntary illegal drug use.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Diminished capacity may be used to challenge whether the State has proved the mental state required for murder and may support reduction to a lesser homicide offense, even if the impairment is connected to voluntary intoxication or drug-induced psychosis.
- Insanity is a complete excuse from criminal responsibility and is not available when the defendant’s psychotic condition was essentially caused by voluntary use of illegal drugs.
- Vermont treats second-degree murder under a “wanton disregard” theory as requiring a mental state for which diminished capacity evidence may be admitted to negate the requisite intent element.

## Conclusion

The court drew a line between partial mitigation and complete excuse: a defendant whose voluntary illegal drug use was an essential cause of a psychotic state may present diminished capacity evidence to contest the mens rea for second-degree murder, but may not invoke insanity to avoid criminal responsibility entirely.


State v. Sexton, 904 A.2d 1092 (Vt. 2006)