Crone, J.
Tommy Orlando Townsend, Sr., appeals his convictions and fifty-five-year aggregate sentence for class A felony burglary and class B felony criminal confinement. He contends that his convictions require reversal because the jury’s rejection of his insanity defense is contrary to law. …
We conclude that the jury properly rejected Townsend’s insanity defense because there was evidence that his mental state at the time of the offenses was due to voluntary intoxication rather than a result of mental disease or defect. … Therefore, we affirm.
….
Townsend … bore the burden of proving that he was legally insane and therefore bore the burden of proving that he had a mental disease or defect. Mental disease or defect, for purposes of the insanity statute, does not include temporary mental incapacity that results from voluntary intoxication. [Footnote omitted.] Berry [v. State], 969 N.E.2d [35,] 42 [(Ind. 2012)]. … “The intersection of voluntary intoxication and insanity is murky at best.” [Id.] at 42. “Ultimately, it is for the trier of fact ‘to determine whether the accused’s conduct was the result of a diseased mind–regardless of the source of the disease–or was the result of voluntary intoxication.’” Id. at 43 (quoting Jackson [v. State], 273 Ind. [49,] 52, 402 N.E.2d [947,] 949 [(1980)]). To succeed on appeal, Townsend must show that the evidence is without conflict and leads only to the conclusion that his mental state at the time he committed the offenses was not the result of voluntary intoxication.
Here, Dr. Mueller concluded that Townsend was legally insane at the time that he committed the offenses. [Record citations omitted throughout.] Specifically, she concluded that he suffered anticholinergic intoxication with secondary psychosis as a result of medications, which he voluntarily took. Dr. Ross concluded that Townsend was psychotic at the time of his crimes related to voluntary consumption of medications. Thus, while both experts agreed that Townsend was suffering from psychosis at the time he committed the offenses, they also both agreed that his psychosis was caused by his voluntary consumption of medications. There is no question that Townsend knowingly and voluntarily took at least two different medications, Flexeril and Dimetapp. Significantly, the Flexeril was a prescription drug for which he did not have a prescription, and he mixed it with at least one other drug. Although [the victim] testified that she learned that Townsend was “ill” on Friday night when the children went to go stay with him, there is no evidence as to why Townsend was taking a muscle relaxant. Presumably, he took the Dimetapp for cold and/or flu symptoms, but a trier of fact could reasonably question why he would take a muscle relaxant for a cold. From the evidence presented, the jury reasonably could have concluded that Townsend’s mental state at the time of the offenses was a result of his voluntary intoxication. Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence as to Townsend’s insanity was not without conflict, and we find no grounds for reversal on this basis.
….
Affirmed.
May, J., and Bradford, J., concur.