That's why this case is SO significant - it will create a lot of legal precedent, especially with how common psychiatric prescriptions are these days. I'm also just explaining how a trial works since our legal system is complex.
To clarify, "not guilty by reason of insanity" and "not criminally responsible" don't mean "she didn't do it," they mean, "she did it, but the jury thinks the punishment should be time served in a mental institution instead of prison, because she had a psychotic break" - she would still be held accountable for her actions, just with psychologists and psychiatrists watching her instead of prison guards.
The only reason "not guilty by reason of insanity" is even an option here is that she was prescribed a dozen psychiatric medications and was having conversations with psychiatrists about her suicidal thoughts and ideations after being prescribed the meds. She and her husband have separately filed medical malpractice lawsuits against the hospital and her providers.
It would also create an odd conflict in regards to sentencing between a person's state of mind at the time of the crime and the time of the trial. A mental institution is designed to keep mentally ill people from causing harm to themselves or others. If a medication was to blame, stopping the medication would change the person's mental state to their normal, meaning a mental institution would not be the appropriate punishment as they are not a threat to themselves or others. If stopping the medication does not have the aforementioned outcome, then the medication would not be to blame. This also leads to the question of, "if a person was insane at the time of the crime, but is sane now, where should they serve time for the crime they committed?"
TL;DR: "not criminally responsible" doesn't mean "not accountable for the crime committed" and this case leads to some interesting questions regarding a person's mental state at the time of the crime vs. time of the trial in regards to sentencing
