Yet, in many cases, it does. A recent case published in out of London tells us that Jules Lowe was cleared of murdering his father because he was sleepwalking when it happened.
He will be hospitalized because the claim falls under the ruling of insanity. Lowe is said to be subject to automatism when sleepwalking. Although he has a history of violence and other arrests, he may be back on the street in a month.
Back in 1982, Steven Steinberg walked away from the charge of murdering his wife. His defense? He was sleepwalking. Ten years later, Kenneth Parks brutally attacked his wife's parents, killing the mother and severely injuring the father. Again, he walked (or should I say "sleepwalked" away, although at this trial it was referred to as automatism.
In a similar case in Australia, a man named Burgess attacked a woman and she was severely injured. He also pled sleepwalking. The verdict was not guilty by reason of insanity.
It doesn't always work. In 1997 Scott Falater was charged with the murder of his wife of twenty years. Again the plea was sleepwalking. The verdict? He was found guilty of premeditated murder.
In 2004, sleepwalking and murder again made the headlines. This time Stephen Reitz was accused of bludgeoning his lover to death. Again the plea was innocent because of sleepwalking. Again, it failed, and he was convicted of first degree murder.
My argument is that a person would have to have this sort of crime in his mind during his waking hours before he'd commit the crime in his sleep. There has to be a reason, the germ of an idea, a desire for violence against someone. If that's the case, then if any murder is committed while the murderer is sleepwalking it would actually be premeditated, wouldn't it?
It shouldn't matter whether the person is a known sleepwalker or not. It shouldn't matter whether or not he'd been drinking or had taken drugs, as is sometimes the case when sleepwalking is the plea.
All that should matter is that the crime was probably in his mind, perhaps even thought out in detail (and no murderer who pleads sleepwalking is going to admit that) before he committed the act while sleepwalking.
Another thought: If this person is a known sleepwalker, if he knows he gets out of his bed during the night to wander the house or the neighborhood, then he has a built-in alibi. No one actually sees these crimes committed. When accused, he "doesn't remember." He's innocent, cause, "Hey, man, I must have done it in my sleep."
It's obvious we need a better way of judging these crimes, a better method of testing the accused, and more research into what a sleepwalker is capable of. Otherwise, I see this defense plea escalating.
