Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

Capacity for Mens Rea

Case: Hendershott v. People, 653 P.2d 385 (1982); [p. 247-250]

Facts: the Δ was charged with third degree assault, and Δ wanted to submit as a defense that he had adult
minimal brain dysfunction, showing that the Δ lacked the requisite culpability of "knowingly" or "recklessly."
The submission of this evidence was denied, because assault in the third degree only needed general intent, and
this type of evidence was restricted to crimes that require specific intent.
That decision was based on statute that provides, "Evidence of an impaired mental condition . . . may be offered
in a proper case as bearing upon the capacity of the accused to form the specific intent if such an intent is an
element of the offense charged."

Holding: Court held that not allowing this into evidence violated the Δ's due process. Government needs to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and not allowing Δ to present this evidence is an impermissible presumption
of culpability, when constitution requires a presumption of innocence.
o MPC § 4.02(1) says, "Evidence that the Δ suffered from a mental disease or defect shall be admissible
whenever it is relevant to prove that the Δ did or did not have a state of mind which is an element of the
offense."

Class Notes
• State says he need to just claim insanity as defense. State loses because violation of due process.
• The mental illness doesn’t allow Δ to create the mental state necessary as an element the government
needs to prove.
• § 4.02 (1) - evidence that the Δ suffered from a mental disease or defect is admissible whenever it is
relevant to prove that the Δ did or did not have a state of mind which is an element of the offense.
• The approach used here is like MPC § 4.02(1) - but discusses in terms of specific or general intent.
• Court says due process entitles Δ to show the evidence. But court distinguishes voluntary intoxication,
and says this would be different if only intoxicated (but here there's a separate involuntary mental
illness).
o Time-framing argument - conscious choice to become intoxicated

_________________________________________

Notes: [p. 250-252]


o United States v. Bright - Δ charged with unlawful possession of stolen checks. Defense wanted to submit
into evidence testimony of psychiatrist, who said that although no mental illness, Δ had a dependant,
childlike character, and this passive dependent personality made her believe a somewhat unbelievable
story, and supposedly Δ didn’t know the truth that the were stolen. Admittance of this evidence was
refused, though.
o Voluntary intoxication, People v. Del Guidice, - held that self-intoxication was not an affirmative
defense to 2nd degree murder, and not allowed to be admitted in order to negate the culpability element of
"knowingly." this is because voluntary intoxication is a condition that can be avoided by conscious choice,
which is different from other medical conditions, where there is no choice.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi