Husband's not a Cop Killer

[JCav]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? Texas.
I wanted to get responses from average people about the wisdom of taking my husband's case to trial. Two years ago, he (accidentally) overdosed on his anti-seizure medicines. For several days he was talking and acting crazy, during which time myself and in-laws called the police and the local mental health officials several times. Nothing was done and he eventually locked himself in the house with a gun, having a stand off with the police. He came out several times with the intent ( I suppose) of "making them end it all" as he had stated before he began the standoff. However, he is now being charged with agg. assault w/ deadly weapon on peace officer. He never shot or harmed anyone, though he may have waved the gun around(doubt this though, he most suredly would have been shot). He has had two psychological exams(state's Dr. and private) Both believe he would have acted that way with the clinical evidence of the toxic levels but the State's doctor questioned his intent in taking the medicine, though she had no reason to believe he was deceiving her. She questioned because he has history of drug abuse, but has been clean for years. Please give honest opinion of what a jury might think

 

[seniorjudge]

Q: Please give honest opinion of what a jury might think.

A: Fry the crazy doper!

 

[CdwJava]

I don't see that there is much of a defense other that trying to convince a jury it was all a tragic error ... good luck on that sell!

- Carl

 

[JETX]

I wanted to get responses from average people about the wisdom of taking my husband's case to trial.

If that was truly the case, why did you LIE by using "Husband's not a Cop Killer" to incite interest in your tale when he was 'only' charged with assault???

Please give honest opinion of what a jury might think

In order to properly answer your question, one needs to know what the charge is... and what constitutes a violation. From the Texas Penal Code:
§ 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in § 22.01 and the person:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse; or
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if the offense is committed:
(1) by a public servant acting under color of the servant's office or employment;
(2) against a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public
servant;
(3) in retaliation against or on account of the service of another as a witness, prospective witness, informant, or person who has reported the occurrence of a crime; or
(4) against a person the actor knows is a security officer while the officer is performing a duty as a security officer.
(c) The actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a public servant or a security officer if the person was wearing a distinctive uniform or badge indicating the person's employment as a public servant or status as a security officer.
(d) In this section, "security officer" means a commissioned security officer as defined by Section 1702.002, Occupations Code, or a noncommissioned security officer registered under Section 1702.221, Occupations Code.


And assault is defined as:
§ 22.01. ASSAULT.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.

So with that and your following:

he may have waved the gun around

with any luck, a jury will find him guilty.

 

[JCav]

FYI
My husband is not crazy nor a doper. He had a problem with pills many years ago. but he's been clean for years. He took his prescribed medication in a manner in which he was prescribed and instructed for prevention of epilepsy. He is a normally kind, gentle person who gets along with everyone. He has never had a violent moment before or since. If you don't have something realistic to say, don't bother.

 

[ENASNI]

Okay I won't bother.

FYI
My husband is not crazy nor a doper. He had a problem with pills many years ago. but he's been clean for years. He took his prescribed medication in a manner in which he was prescribed and instructed for prevention of epilepsy. He is a normally kind, gentle person who gets along with everyone. He has never had a violent moment before or since. If you don't have something realistic to say, don't bother.

Oops I bothered.

Most times meds for epilepsy will put you down...not make you grab a gun and make you nutso...


There is sooo much more to this story... but I don't really want to hear it.

 

[JETX]

FYI
My husband is not crazy nor a doper. He had a problem with pills many years ago. but he's been clean for years. He took his prescribed medication in a manner in which he was prescribed and instructed for prevention of epilepsy. He is a normally kind, gentle person who gets along with everyone. He has never had a violent moment before or since. If you don't have something realistic to say, don't bother.

Okay, so the TRUTH comes out.
You lied about the subject.
You lied when you said "Please give honest opinion of what a jury might think"

You appear to only be interested in responses that agree with your already biased and unlikely 'version'.

 

[calatty]

There are two sides to every story. I am sure the police version is different, and that is the version the jury will believe. The police will surely say he pointed the gun at them, and did not just wave it. That is an assault because assault is an attempted battery. No physical contact is required. Taking too much or the wrong medication is not a defense to a criminal charge. He would have to prove it made him insane, which is a very high standard which he probably cannot meet. He should hope for a good plea offer and jump on it.

 

[seniorjudge]

...Taking too much or the wrong medication is not a defense to a criminal charge....

They call it voluntary intoxication.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Antiseizure medications don't make you crazy, they sedate, most likely he didn't take them or took something else. Antiseizure Rx are also given for other disorders including bipolar. There is more to this story. Insanity pleas don't go over too well with juries in Texas ask Andrea Pia Yeats.

 

[ENASNI]

Hey!

Antiseizure medications don't make you crazy, they sedate, most likely he didn't take them or took something else. Antiseizure Rx are also given for other disorders including bipolar. There is more to this story. Insanity pleas don't go over too well with juries in Texas ask Andrea Pia Yeats.

Is there an echo in here...
I said this doc....

Hi!

 

[JCav]

I want to thank everyone who responded to this post, even those who thought I was lying or concealing something. Everything I put in the post is true by the way, and the title was not a defensive statement but rather an affirmation meant to elicit interest. This was intended to get what a typical jury's response might be, and it was quite enlightening. I understand that most persons would, such as all of you, be incredulous as to the likelihood of events. Since a typical jury would know my husband no better than you, this was, in essence, a litmus test.
Most attorneys we spoke to said that involuntary intoxication of a Rx is an affirmative defense when the side-effects are unknown to the patient. It is involuntary because he was performing in what is called "loading", a term used for a temporary increase in dosage until a desired blood level is attained. He has done it many times, but without any problems prior. But it would be difficult to defend, because he opted to do the "loading" at home rather than in the hospital where his Dr. recommended, especially with a medicine that he had never tried before. Jury's do not care that a person is just sick of being in the hospital all the time. That decision would, most likely, be interpreted as reckless.
Therefore, my question has been answered by all of you who took the time to respond. He would be wise to accept the plea bargain that has been offered. Thank you for your time.

 

[JCav]

P.S. In a small number of persons, psychiatric problems have occurred in those taking Topamax during clinical trials. Cut and paste the address below into your browser and read the third paragraph down.

http://www.topamax-epilepsy.com/hcp/safety.html