A person who was in a state of automatism at the time he is alleged to have committed an offense, cannot be guilty of it and the only question is whether he is to be found simply 'not guilty' or, not guilty by reason of insanity'.
The outcome depends on how the automatism was caused. If it was caused by 'a disease of the mind' the proper verdict is not guilty by reason of insanity. If it arose from any other cause the verdict is simply not guilty. If you want to explore regarding drug defence attorney visit, http://www.deckerjoneslaw.com/drug-possession-sale/.
Image Source Google
But whether a cause is a 'disease of the mind' is a question of law and that phrase has a wide meaning. Any 'internal factor', mental or physical, is, in law, a disease of the mind. So automatism caused by a cerebral tumor or arteriosclerosis, epilepsy, or diabetes arises from a disease of the mind.
It will be recalled that the one exception in common law to the rule that the burden of the proof is on the prosecution is the defense of insanity. He is raising the insanity defense and it will be for him to satisfy the jury on the balance of probabilities that this was so; but if he relies on external factor and lays a proper foundation for the defense the onus is on the prosecution to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not so.