Substance Abuse / Dependence / Insanity Defense Flashcards
Substance Dependance v. Abuse
Dependance is one step further than abuse where one will feel withdrawal symptoms.
Two Models of Substance Abuse at Tension
Medical & Moral Deficiency Models
Robinson v. California (1962)
CA statute said misdemeanor for an individual to “either use narcotics or be addicted to the use of narcotics.” Defendant was arrested for being addicted. The jury found Robinson guilty, a verdict requiring at least 90 days’ imprisonment. In accordance with the judge’s instructions, the jury never specified whether it convicted on the act of drug use or the status of being addicted.
Appellate Court: Supported the conviction.
USSC: Reversed; majority embraced the medical model.
Justice Douglas: Agreed with the majority and clarified that it is justifiable to punish an individual for illegal acts, but he did not see how simply being an addict could be punished as a crime under the Constitution
Used 8th amendment to prohibit punishment of a specific behavior.
The definition of addiction as a disease was legally adopted, and states were prohibited from making the status of being an addict a criminal offense.
Easter v. District of Columbia (1966)
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that criminalizing the status of addict also violated the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection.
Behaviors stemming from addiction were still actionable.
Montana v. Egelhoff (1996) - Voluntary Intoxication and Criminal Intent
Facts: Defendant drinking with two others. Found in backseat of wrecked car. Had shot others in back of head. 4x legal driving BAC level. Tried for two counts of deliberate homicide. Found guilty and sentenced to 40 years for each count plus 2 years on each for use of a weapon.
Defendant Argument: He was physically incapable of shooting the victims; and he was blackout
Judge Instruction: Voluntary intoxication could not be taken into account when considering the “knowingly and purposely” key elements of the crime.
Appealed the verdict to the Supreme Court of Montana. He asserted that he was denied due process by the jury instruction that voluntary intoxication could not be taken into consideration in determining his mental state, a key consideration in the determination of guilt for deliberate homicide.
Montana SC: Was denied due process. Prosecutor appealed this.
USSC: Reversed the Montana SC. The instruction to ignore his intoxication had not violated Egelhoff’s right to due process.
Montana v. Egelhoff (1996) - USSC Opinion and Logic
Voluntary intoxication may be appropriate to offer as evidence that a crime was committed in the heat of passion (vs. premeditated). However, since experts do not generally agree upon this link, it would not be a violation of due process if a judge chose to disallow such testimony in a particular case.
The logic behind this practice is that the jury may be falsely persuaded by the defense that the defendant was physically incapable of committing the crime due to being under the influence of a substance, or that he or she may also be excused of the crime altogether. In the Court’s view, one cannot simply say he or she is addicted and therefore be afforded a minimized sentence.
Felix v. Wobler (2007) - Settled Insanity
Defined as a permanent condition resulting from chronic substance abuse, rather than the immediate acute effects of intoxication. This notion is permitted in some jurisdictions as a threshold for the insanity defense, though it is not universally accepted.
Commonwealth v. Eldred (2018)
Probation violation when defendant tested positive for fentanyl. Original charge for larceny (to make money to feed drug habit). Judge modified conditions to require inpatient treatment. Defendant was released to an inpatient treatment facility.
Court: Judge can order and addicted defendant to remain drug free as a condition of probation.
Defendant Motion: Argued she could not “willfully” be in violation of her probation conditions. Motion was denied.
Original Insanity Defense Tests
(a) Rex v. Arnold (1724): Basically, a big dumb baby with not memory or understanding.
(b) Hadfield (1800): Considers knowing right from wrong; understanding the nature of the act; clear design/forethought.
(c) Regina v. Oxford (1840): the “irresistible impulse” or “product” test.
M’Naghten Case & Insanity Defense Test (British)
Two of five questions the Supreme Court had to answer became the M’Naghten test: (a) Not knowing the nature or quality of the act he was doing; (b) or, if he did know, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.
Called the “ridged” test; criticized for having little relation to the truths of mental life; American courts still adopted it.
Response: some courts adopted the irresistible impulse test – would work even if the defendant remained able to understand the nature of the offense and its wrongfulness.
Durham v. United States (1954)
The Product Test
- If the crime was the offspring or product of mental disease in the defendant, he was not guilty by reason of insanity.
- Provides for broadest range of psychiatric expert testimony.
- Criticism: not helpful to jurors, too dependent on expertise.
- Was then modified and eventually dismantled.
American Law Institute - Model Penal Code Insanity Defense Standard
Volitional/cognitive: not guilty if, as the result of a mental defect, he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate (must be emotionally and intellectually aware) the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. [Eventually adopted by over ½ of states and most federal circuits.]
Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity Post-Hinkley - Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984
(a) Discarded ALI-MPC.
(b) It shifted the burden of proof to defendants, by a quantum of clear and convincing evidence.
(c) Established strict procedures for the hospitalization and release of defendants found NGRI.
((d) Severely limited the scope of expert testimony in insanity cases.
Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI)
Origins: Received its initial incentive in 1975 in Michigan, following outcry over a state supreme court decision which prohibited automatic commitment of insanity acquitted. The rationale in support of such legislation was that it would reduce insanity acquittals, and assure treatment of those who were GBMI within a correctional setting.
Intent: “Protect the public from violence inflicted by persons with mental ailments who slipped through the cracks of the criminal justice system.”
Application: A defendant would be found GBMI if he or she were guilty of the offense in question, and was mentally ill but not legally insane at the time of the offense.
Criticism: Conceptually flawed and procedurally problematic. Doesn’t really protect the public and those convicted were not guaranteed treatment.
Clark v. Arizona (2006)
USSC: Concluded that due process did not prohibit the use of an insanity test couched solely in terms of the capacity to tell whether an act charged as a crime was right or wrong, nor did it prohibit restriction of consideration of defense evidence to evidence that bears on the defendant’s mens rea (guilty mind).
Cognitive incapacity // Moral Incapacity - Is relevant and admissible.
