Insanity defense Flashcards
Rex v Arnold
Wild beast test for insanity
M’Naghten
considered the cognitive test
- defect/illness is such that you didn’t know the nature and quality of your act
- if you did know it, you didn’t know what you did was wrong
Durham v U.S.
the product test
what the unlawful act the product of the mental illness or defect?
McDonald v U.S.
Federal District Court of DC restricted the definition of mental defect/illness to “any abnormal condition of the mind which substantially impairs mental or bx processes and substantially impairs bx controls”
lots of criticism
Washington v U.S.
US District Court: NO MORE ULTIMATE ISSUE OPINIONS on MSO
can only testify about the development of the illness and whether defendant was suffering from it at the time of the offense
U.S. v Brawner
- overruled Durham/product test
- used ALI instead
- evidence of mental abnormality could be used to negate mens rea by the definition of the offense
- BUT court placed specific and general intent restriction on the introduction of such evidence
People v Patterson
Patterson charged with murder, he claimed he was under the influence
LANDMARK case - NYSC ruled that burden of proof for affirmative defense is on the defendant
Edney v Smith
state allowed access to expert the defense used and discarded because defendant brought up MSO defense
state can use the same expert to challenge the insanity defense
Ibn-Tamas v U.S.
woman killed her husband and was convicted
Court ruled that testimony based on BWS is relevant and admissible in self-defense
Jones v U.S.
Jones was found NGRI on shoplifting and was committed, he argued that indefinite commitment was unconstitutional
Court ruled that NGRI indefinite commitment was constitutional
- OK to confine until no longer a danger
Ake v Oklahoma
SCOTUS ruled that indigent defendants should have a court-appointed psych evaluation for MSO defense
Powell v Texas
alcoholic arrested for public intoxication; he argued he shouldn’t be punished for being an alcoholic
SCOTUS ruled that one can’t be punished for being an alcoholic BUT you can be held criminally liable for public intoxication
People v Saille
Saille shot someone at a cafe while drunk
CASC ruled that diminished capacity defense was still abolished BUT voluntary intoxication could still be used to negate intent for specific crimes
Foucha v Louisiana
dude committed as NGRI - later dx with ASPD
court ruled he had to be released b/c unconstitutional to confine someone just for potential danger if he didn’t have a mental illness
- ASPD doesn’t count
Montana v Egelhoff
man was on trial for homicide and his defense was that extreme intoxication rendered him incapable of committing the offense or remembering that he committed the offense
SCOTUS ruled that the constitution does NOT guarantee a right to present evidence of voluntary intoxication if the state statutes don’t allow it
Clark v Arizona
schizophrenic dude killed a cop because he thought he was an alien - he didn’t intend to kill a human being but he knew he was KILLING someone and it was wrong
SCOTUS upheld AZ’s insanity law which was the 1st prong of M’Naghten
- therefore he wasn’t able to present evidence regarding whether he possessed the mental intent (of killing a human)
Kansas v Cheever
man shot and killed a sheriff - his defense was voluntary intoxication
Court ruled that prosecution can access a court-appointed expert’s report to rebut MSO testimony presented by the defense
