With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to in effect sneak in the insanity defense without labeling it as such and without the necessity of complying with the notice statute as to the insanity defense.” Id. 3. The question on habeas review is whether the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Carpenter is constitutionally significant. That is, was it unforeseeable that the defense may be abolished or is it otherwise unfair to apply the holding of Carpenter to Petitioner. The answer is no. First, after the Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision in Lynch, the Michigan Supreme Court acknowledged in passing the concept of the diminished capacity defense, but it never specifically authorized its use in the Michigan courts. See Carpenter, 464 Mich. at 232-33, 627 N.W.2d 276 (citing People v. Lloyd, 459 Mich. 433, 590 N.W.2d 738 (1999) (<HOLDING>); People v. Pickens, 446 Mich. 298, 521 N.W.2d

A: holding that a defendants insanity due to voluntary intoxication is not a defense
B: holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity
C: holding that diminished capacity is a defense only to specific intent crimes
D: holding that insanity is a complete defense to the criminal charge
B.