Malcolm Mendell Aubry v. State

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court reversed Malcolm Mendell Aubry’s convictions for first-degree murder of an older victim and abuse of an older or vulnerable person, holding that the jury was improperly instructed regarding voluntary intoxication and a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity defense. The court clarified that a jury may consider voluntary intoxication together with a disease or defect of the mind, provided that voluntary intoxication alone is not the cause of the disease or defect. The court also held that the State violated expert-disclosure requirements by presenting materially expanded testimony concerning the victim’s cause of death, although Aubry failed to show prejudice from that violation.

Holdings

1. A jury may consider whether a combination of voluntary intoxication and a disease or defect of the mind resulted in legal insanity, but voluntary intoxication alone may not be the cause of the disease or defect. Jury instruction 17, which barred consideration of voluntary intoxication if it contributed to the defendant's insanity, misstated Nevada law.
2. The instructional error was not harmless because it could have foreclosed the jury from finding that Aubry proved insanity based on the combination of traumatic brain injury and voluntary intoxication, and the State emphasized the erroneous instruction during closing argument.
3. Presenting trial expert testimony that substantially differed from the previously disclosed preliminary-hearing testimony, by expanding the possible causes of death to include strangulation and asphyxia, violated the notice requirements of NRS 174.234.
4. The disclosure violation did not constitute reversible plain error because Aubry failed to demonstrate prejudice affecting his substantial rights.

Questions Presented

1. Whether jury instruction 17 incorrectly barred the jury from considering voluntary intoxication as a contributing factor to a mental disease or defect supporting a not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity defense.
2. Whether the instructional error was harmless.
3. Whether the State violated NRS 174.234 by presenting trial expert testimony expanding the possible causes of death beyond the preliminary-hearing testimony without notifying the defense.
4. Whether the disclosure violation constituted reversible plain error.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded