Criminal Responsibility Flashcards
Clark v. Arizona (2006) *
A defendant does NOT have a 14th Amendment due process right to present expert evidence about his mental state, outside of an insanity plea, to counter prosecution’s evidence of criminal intent.
This case addresses what the constitution permits a state to do, not what a state is required to do (restrict evidence of MI for mens rea defense)
States with insanity defense statutes are not constitutionally required to include a volitional prong.
Stated “obs evidence” should always be admissible (what def did and said during the offense); banned mental disease and capacity evidence.
Kahler v. Kansas (2019) *
A state CAN restrict/narrow a criminal responsibility standard without violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
Durham v. U.S. (1954) *
The Product Test
M’Naghten Rule is too narrow, and modern criteria should also adopt whether or not the criminal act was the product of a mental disease or defect.
Edney v. Smith (1976)
Insanity defendants CANNOT preclude prosecution from calling expert witnesses who may have been retained by the defense.
Foucha v. Louisiana (1992) *
An insanity acquittee MUST be BOTH mentally ill and dangerous for a state to justify continued hospitalization.
- Dangerousness by itself is not sufficient
- Otherwise it is a violence of 14th Amend. due process clause
Ibn-Tamas v. U.S. (1979)
Delineated standards for experts and their testimony (in particular here, for Battered Woman Syndrome).
(1) The subject matter must be beyond what is expected from “the average layman”
(2) The witness must have sufficient skill/knowledge/experience that their testimony would “probably” assist the trier of fact in their search for the truth
(3) The testimony must meet admissibility standards first (Daubert or Frye), otherwise it is inadmissible.
Jones v. U.S. (1983)
NGRI acquittees CAN be subject to involuntary and indefinite commitment.
M’Naghten’s Case (1843) *
Established framework for the legal test of insanity (M’Naghten Rules).
(1) Insanity is for the jury to decide, and (2) Is determined by an appreciation of RIGHT VERSUS WRONG at the time of the alleged offense.
Powell v. Texas (1989)*
Public intoxication is a crime even if it is a result of alcoholism.
A person may be convicted on behaviors stemming from addiction.
U.S. v. Brawner (1972)*
Overruled Durham and substituted with new insanity standard taken from ALI MPC.
Also adopted rule that evidence of mental abnormality could be used to negate mens rea required by offense.
MPC: “A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.”
Washington v. U.S. (1967)
An expert witness should not be allowed to testify to the ultimate question in an insanity defense case.
MH experts should:
(1) describe the development of the MI
(2) describe the defendant’s adaptation to the MI
(3) describe whether the defendant was suffering from the MI at the time of the offense.
People v. Saille (1991)
Voluntary intoxication cannot be used to reduce murder to manslaughter in CA
Montana v. Egelhoff (1996)
It is not a violation of due process to prohibit voluntary intoxication evidence when determining mens rea/MSO
McDonald v. U.S. (1962)
Defined mental disease/defect as “any abnormal condition of mind which substantially impairs bx controls” or substantially affects mental/emotional processes
Kansas v. Cheever (2013)
When defense expert testifies defendant lacked requisite mental state, prosecution may present psych evidence in rebuttal (and it does not violate def’s 5th Am.)
