People v. Low Case Brief

Supreme Court of Colorado1987Docket #551810
732 P.2d 622 1987 Colo. LEXIS 486

Audio lesson available for this case

LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.

Unlock with LSD+

Complete case briefs with LSD+

Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

3 min read

tl;dr: Defendant was acquitted of assault after ingesting excessive cough drops, causing temporary insanity. The appellate court disapproved the acquittal, finding the trial court erred by considering insanity/impaired mental condition evidence without the required special pleas.

Legal Significance: This case underscores the strict statutory pleading requirements for insanity and impaired mental condition defenses, distinguishing them from involuntary intoxication, and clarifies that failure to plead waives these defenses for negating mens rea.

People v. Low Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

Robert Eugene Low, after consuming approximately 120 “HOLD” cough drops containing dextromethorphan hydrobromide within twenty-four hours, experienced a psychotic episode. Believing he was dead and in hell, and that the victim, A.D. McCowan, was “the devil,” Low stabbed McCowan in the back. Expert psychiatric testimony indicated Low suffered from “toxic psychosis” or “organic delusional syndrome” rendering him legally insane and incapable of forming criminal intent at the time of the incident. Low had not previously experienced adverse effects from the cough drops and was unaware of their potential to cause such a reaction. At trial, Low did not plead not guilty by reason of insanity or impaired mental condition as statutorily required. Instead, he raised the defense of involuntary intoxication, arguing the cough drop warning was inadequate. The trial court acquitted Low, finding the prosecution failed to prove the requisite mens rea due to Low’s chemically induced temporary insanity, without making an explicit finding on involuntary intoxication.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Did the trial court err in considering evidence of the defendant’s insanity or impaired mental condition to negate the mens rea element of assault when the defendant failed to specially plead these defenses as required by statute?

Yes, the trial court erred by admitting and considering evidence of insanity Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

About IRAC analysis

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.

Legal Issue

Did the trial court err in considering evidence of the defendant’s insanity or impaired mental condition to negate the mens rea element of assault when the defendant failed to specially plead these defenses as required by statute?

Conclusion

The case reaffirms that statutory procedures for raising affirmative defenses of insanity Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitat

Legal Rule

Under Colorado law, the affirmative defense of insanity must be raised by Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad

Legal Analysis

The Colorado Supreme Court distinguished three potential defenses arising from the defendant's Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercit

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • The Colorado Supreme Court disapproved an acquittal where the trial court
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nul

Read the full analysis

The complete holding, rule, and analysis for this case are available to LSD+ subscribers.

Start 14-Day Free Trial