Insanity and Diminished Capacity
Insanity
General Principles
Two ways which insanity can be used
Negate Mens Rea
The prosecution failed to prove that the defendant had the required mens rea to commit the offense
Burden rests on the prosecution to prove mental state
Verdict = not guilty
Civil commitment will not result automatically
Present an affirmative defense of insanity
Even though the prosecution proved all of the elements of the crime charged, the defendant was legally insane at the time of the crime
Burden (in most states) rests on defendant to prove insanity by a preponderance of evidence (some jurisdictions require clear and convincing evidence)
Verdict = Not guilty by reason for insanity
Generally results in automatic civil commitment
Insanity Tests
Tests only come into play when you are asserting insanity as an affirmative defense. (NGRI).
All of these tests require a mental disease or defect at the time of the offense, but most courts fail to define that term.
The M’Naghten Test (17 states, 11 states use one of the prongs)
A person is insane if, at the time of her act, she was laboring under such a defect of reason, arising from a mental disease that:
She did not know the nature and quality of the act she was doing OR
If she did know it, she did not know that what she was doing was wrong.
The Irresistible Impulse Test
Adds a third prong to the M’Naghten test
A person is insane if, at the time of her act, she was laboring under such a defect of reason, arising from a mental disease that:
She did not know the nature and quality of the act she was doing OR
If she did know it, she did not know that what she was doing was wrong OR
At the time of the offense, she acted from an irresistible and uncontrollable impulse.
The Product Test (Only in New Hampshire)
An accused is not criminally responsible if her unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect.
A defendant is entitled to acquittal if:
She is suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the crime AND
The disease was the but-for cause of the criminal conduct
The MPC Test
A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, she lacks substantial capacity either to:
Appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of her conduct OR
Cognitive Prong
Conform her conduct to the requirements of the law
Volition Prong (basically the irresistible impulse prong)
Differences from M’Naghten:
Substantial incapacity instead of total incapacity
Appreciate instead of “know”. Makes test more defendant friendly, harder to appreciate rather than just know
Insanity and Mens Rea
The MPC allows evidence of mental illness to negate any mens rea element of any crime.
Some jurisdictions allow evidence of mental illness to show that the defendant did not form a specific intent specified in the offense, but not for general intent offense.
Some jurisdictions allow evidence of mental illness only to establish an affirmative defense of legal insanity, but completely prohibit such evidence to negate the mens rea of the offense charged.
Diminished Capacity
Refers to cases where the actor’s mental illness falls short of insanity
Evidence of diminished capacity can be used for two purposes:
To negate the mens rea required for the crime (“mens rea”)
To partially excuse the defendant’s guilt even if she has the required mens rea for the crime. (“partial responsibility”)
Clark v. Arizona, SCOTUS 2006
Categories of evidence with a potential bearing on mens rea
Observation evidence: testimony from those who observed D commit the act. Also includes expert testimony about D’s tendency to think in a certain way and his behavioral characteristics.
Mental-disease evidence: opinion testimony that D suffered from a mental disease.
Capacity evidence: opinion evidence regarding defendant’s capacity for cognition and moral judgment.
Arizona has sensible reasons to assign the risks of mental disease evidence, and restrict admissible evidence for mens rea defense short of insanity to observation evidence only
Partial Responsibility
Even if the prosecution proves the elements of the crime charged, the defendant may bring evidence of mental illness, short of insanity, to show that she is less culpable than a completely sane defendant and should be convicted of a lesser crime.
Only the MPC recognizes the partial responsibility defense and where it does apply, it is only a defense to murder to mitigate the offense to manslaughter.
Insanity
General Principles
Two ways which insanity can be used
Negate Mens Rea
The prosecution failed to prove that the defendant had the required mens rea to commit the offense
Burden rests on the prosecution to prove mental state
Verdict = not guilty
Civil commitment will not result automatically
Present an affirmative defense of insanity
Even though the prosecution proved all of the elements of the crime charged, the defendant was legally insane at the time of the crime
Burden (in most states) rests on defendant to prove insanity by a preponderance of evidence (some jurisdictions require clear and convincing evidence)
Verdict = Not guilty by reason for insanity
Generally results in automatic civil commitment
Insanity Tests
Tests only come into play when you are asserting insanity as an affirmative defense. (NGRI).
All of these tests require a mental disease or defect at the time of the offense, but most courts fail to define that term.
The M’Naghten Test (17 states, 11 states use one of the prongs)
A person is insane if, at the time of her act, she was laboring under such a defect of reason, arising from a mental disease that:
She did not know the nature and quality of the act she was doing OR
If she did know it, she did not know that what she was doing was wrong.
The Irresistible Impulse Test
Adds a third prong to the M’Naghten test
A person is insane if, at the time of her act, she was laboring under such a defect of reason, arising from a mental disease that:
She did not know the nature and quality of the act she was doing OR
If she did know it, she did not know that what she was doing was wrong OR
At the time of the offense, she acted from an irresistible and uncontrollable impulse.
The Product Test (Only in New Hampshire)
An accused is not criminally responsible if her unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect.
A defendant is entitled to acquittal if:
She is suffering from a mental disease or defect at the time of the crime AND
The disease was the but-for cause of the criminal conduct
The MPC Test
A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, she lacks substantial capacity either to:
Appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of her conduct OR
Cognitive Prong
Conform her conduct to the requirements of the law
Volition Prong (basically the irresistible impulse prong)
Differences from M’Naghten:
Substantial incapacity instead of total incapacity
Appreciate instead of “know”. Makes test more defendant friendly, harder to appreciate rather than just know
Insanity and Mens Rea
The MPC allows evidence of mental illness to negate any mens rea element of any crime.
Some jurisdictions allow evidence of mental illness to show that the defendant did not form a specific intent specified in the offense, but not for general intent offense.
Some jurisdictions allow evidence of mental illness only to establish an affirmative defense of legal insanity, but completely prohibit such evidence to negate the mens rea of the offense charged.
Diminished Capacity
Refers to cases where the actor’s mental illness falls short of insanity
Evidence of diminished capacity can be used for two purposes:
To negate the mens rea required for the crime (“mens rea”)
To partially excuse the defendant’s guilt even if she has the required mens rea for the crime. (“partial responsibility”)
Clark v. Arizona, SCOTUS 2006
Categories of evidence with a potential bearing on mens rea
Observation evidence: testimony from those who observed D commit the act. Also includes expert testimony about D’s tendency to think in a certain way and his behavioral characteristics.
Mental-disease evidence: opinion testimony that D suffered from a mental disease.
Capacity evidence: opinion evidence regarding defendant’s capacity for cognition and moral judgment.
Arizona has sensible reasons to assign the risks of mental disease evidence, and restrict admissible evidence for mens rea defense short of insanity to observation evidence only
Partial Responsibility
Even if the prosecution proves the elements of the crime charged, the defendant may bring evidence of mental illness, short of insanity, to show that she is less culpable than a completely sane defendant and should be convicted of a lesser crime.
Only the MPC recognizes the partial responsibility defense and where it does apply, it is only a defense to murder to mitigate the offense to manslaughter.
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire