Criminal Law Consulting
​For Writers & Filmmakers
  • Home
  • About
  • Services
  • Resources
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Free eBook

When Is a Defendant Considered Legally Insane?

5/17/2012

1 Comment

 
What is required to prove a criminal defendant is legally insane?  Each state has its own laws and rules about its legal definition of insanity, but there are some general concepts that can be used to understand what it means to be legally insane.  It is important to note that the insanity defense is rarely used and has even been abolished in some states.

Insanity is generally considered an "excuse" to committing a crime.  An excuse defense is where, even though the defendant engaged in criminal conduct, he is excused from legal responsibility because of some condition in the defendant.  

Insanity is also considered to be an "affirmative defense."  An affirmative defense is one in which the defendant must affirmatively assert the defense and produce some evidence supporting it.  For some affirmative defenses in some states, the defendant also has the burden of proving the defense is true.  

Defendants are generally presumed to be sane, so a prosecutor does not need to prove the defendant was sane unless the defendant puts his sanity into question.  Once it is put into question, either the prosecution must prove the defendant was sane beyond a reasonable doubt or the defendant must prove he was insane by a preponderance of the evidence.

In some states the defendant must enter a special plea, such as not guilty by reason of insanity. Some states have a separate sanity phase where the jury determines the defendant's sanity after it has decided he committed the charged crime.

The focus of determining a defendant's sanity is his mental condition at the time of the crime.  (This is one way the test for insanity is different than the test for competence to stand trial.  For a discussion of the differences between sanity and competency, check out this prior post.)

To be found insane, the defendant must show that he suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time he committed the crime.  Generally, the mental disease or defect may be permanent or temporary.

The M'Naghten Test

The defendant's mental condition must satisfy the legal standard for insanity.  The M'Naghten test is traditionally the most commonly used  test to determine insanity.  Under the M'Naghten test, a person is considered legally insane if: 

1.  at the time of the crime
2.  he suffered from a defect of reason that resulted in him either
     a.  not knowing the nature and quality of the act he performed, or
     b.  not knowing his act was wrong.

A defendant knows the nature of his act if he knows what act he is performing.  He knows the quality of his act if he understands the consequences that flow from his act.

For example, a woman is charged with murdering her baby by drowning.  To prove she was legally insane, she must prove that because of a defect of reason, she either did not know she was holding her baby's head underwater, or did not know that holding the baby's head underwater would result in him drowning.

Alternately, the defendant can show she did not know that her act was wrong.  The term "wrong" in this context may mean either legally wrong or morally wrong, depending on the state.

In the above example, if the woman knew she was holding her baby's head underwater and understood this would cause the baby to drown, but she believed she must do so to rid him of the devil, she would assert that she did not know her act was wrong.  This would be an example of a moral wrong.

Insane Delusions

If someone suffers from delusions because of a defect of reason, they may be able to assert the insanity defense, depending on the nature of the delusion.  If the delusion was to a fact that, if true, would have justified the defendant's acts, he could assert the insanity defense.  If, however, the delusion was to a fact that, if true, would not have justified the defendant's acts, he may not be considered insane.

For example, the defendant was delusional and believed the victim was holding a gun when in fact e was holding a pen.  The victim pointed the pen at the defendant, who believed he was about to be shot.  The defendant pulled out a gun and shot the victim.  The defendant could assert the insanity defense because, had the victim really pointed a gun at him, he would have been justified in shooting the victim in self-defense.

However, if the defendant's delusion was that the victim tricked him out of his money, and he shot the victim in revenge, he would not be considered legally insane because, even if his belief was true, tricking someone out of their money does not justify shooting them.

Irresistible Impulse Test

The irresistible impulse test is sometimes used in conjunction with the M'Naghten test.  Under this test, the defendant must have a defect of the mind that makes it impossible for him to control his actions.

It is not sufficient to meet this test if someone is overcome by anger, jealousy, or other strong emotions.  (Such passion may be sufficient to reduce a killing from murder to voluntary manslaughter, but it cannot be a complete defense.)

Model Penal Code Test

Another test for insanity is set out by the Model Penal Code.  Under this test a person is considered insane if, because of a mental disease or defect, the person did not have the capacity to:
1.  understand the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct, or 
2.  to conform his conduct to the law.

This is sometimes called the "policeman at the elbow test."  In other words, if the person would have committed the act even if there had been a police officer at her elbow watching her, she is considered unable to have understood the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the law.

A defendant's sanity may be proven by either medical professionals or by lay (non-expert) witnesses.  Lay witnesses may testify about the defendant's behavior around the time of the crime to help the jury determine whether the defendant was sane or insane at the time of the crime.

To understand the differences between insanity and competency to stand trial, click here.

Claim your free E-book on The Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery, and Legal Drama.
1 Comment

Why Does Attempted Murder Require an "Intent to Kill" Whereas Murder Does Not?

3/11/2012

0 Comments

 
It may seem strange, but attempted murder requires that the defendant has the specific intent to kill, whereas murder requires either an intent to kill or a conscious disregard for life.  A person can be convicted of murder without intending to kill.  (As discussed in depth here, this is the mental state or mens rea of the crime.)

This is because an attempt to commit any crime requires that the person specifically intend to commit that crime.  You cannot be convicted of attempted robbery if you did not intend to rob.

Murder, on the other hand, may be committed when the defendant kills someone with an intent to kill.  Or it may be committed when the defendant did something extremely dangerous with the conscious disregard for human life.  This is called implied malice.

An example of implied malice could be where someone randomly shoots a gun in a place where people might be,  if the shooter did not intend to kill anyone.  Another example could be driving at a very high rate of speed on a road where the driver knows other people or cars may to be.

It is important to note that in most states, for murder to be of the first degree, there must be an intent to kill.  A conscious disregard for human life will only support a lesser degree of murder, such as second degree murder in California.

Because murder can be supported by a lesser mental state than attempted murder, this could lead to the strange scenario where someone could be convicted of murder if the victim dies, but could not be convicted of attempted murder if the victim lives.

For more information like this sent to your inbox, join the Criminal Law Community.  If you are a writer or filmmaker in the crime and legal genres, check out my free eBook revealing the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.
0 Comments

Premeditated Murder: What Does It Mean Exactly?

2/17/2012

7 Comments

 
Most people know that when someone commits murder that is willful, deliberate, and premeditated, that is murder in the first degree.  That is generally considered the worst kind of murder and carries the highest penalties.

But what exactly do "willfulness," "deliberation," and "premeditation" mean?  They each have distinct legal definitions that may not be exactly what you think.

Willful simply means on purpose.  Someone commits murder willfully when he or she intends to kill.  He or she kills on purpose.

Deliberate means to to carefully weigh the considerations for and against killing, and to choose to kill knowing the consequences.

Premedite means to decide to kill before taking action.  A murder is premeditated if the killer decides to kill before actually killing.

Most people think these words and definitions imply a lengthy and considered decision-making process.  However, a person can deliberate and premeditate in a very short amount of time. 

Depending on all the circumstances, mere seconds can suffice for someone to arrive at a thought-out -- premeditated and deliberate -- decision to kill.

As discussed in this article explaining states of mind, it can be very difficult to determine a defendant's state of mind (or mens rea).  It is almost always determined by circumstantial evidence. 

Things like the manner of killing, any planning activity, and motive, can be powerful circumstantial evidence of the killer's state of mind.

Check out this article exploring the difficulties of determining the defendant's state of mind in a case where a middle school student shot another student in the head during class.

To get information like this sent to your inbox, join the Criminal Law Community for free.
7 Comments

When Love and Crime Collide: Some Classic Killing-Couple Films

2/14/2012

0 Comments

 
In honor of Valentine's Day, here are a few movies about lovers committing crimes together.  Who says love and crime don't mix?  Click on the pictures to check out the movies you may have missed!

Bonnie and Clyde (starring Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway)
Natural Born Killers (starring Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis)
True Romance (starring Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette)
Love and a .45 (starring Gil Bellows and Renee Zellweger)
Badlands (starring Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek)
Gun Crazy (starring John Dall and Peggy Cummins)
And an honorable mention goes out to Thelma and Louise (starring Susan Sarandon and Gina Davis).  Although it's not technically a lovers-on-a-killing-spree movie, there's no doubt those BFFs loved each other!
For fun crime and criminal law content like this delivered to your inbox, join the Criminal Law Community.

Are any of your favorites here?  Did I miss any good ones?
0 Comments

Acts That Will NOT Reduce a Murder to Heat of Passion Voluntary Manslaughter

2/9/2012

0 Comments

 
I have previously discussed the general requirements to reduce an intentional killing from murder to voluntary manslaughter under a heat of passion theory. 

Yesterday, I set out  several examples of acts that may constitute sufficient provocation by the victim to justify a voluntary manslaughter conviction in lieu of murder.

To recap, a murder may be reduced to voluntary manslaughter under a heat of passion theory where:  1) the victim provoked the defendant, 2) the provocation caused the defendant to act rashly and under the influence of intense emotion, obscuring his judgment and reasoning, and 3) the provocation would have caused the average person to act rashly.

Some examples of acts by the victim that generally DO NOT constitute sufficient provocation (so the defendant will be on the hook for murder) include:

1.  A simple or slight assault.
2.  A simple trespass.  (However, a trespass combined with a physical attack or physical resistance to an eviction may suffice.)
3.  A victim's refusal to engage in sex.
4.  Molestation of a stranger.  In other words, where the defendant kills someone he believes sexually molested a child who was not related to or emotionally close to the defendant, the molestation is not sufficient provocation, and the defendant must be convicted of murder.
5.  Mere words or gestures, unless accompanied by something more.

 For more in-depth information about the differences between murder and voluntary manslaughter, check out this article.

For more information like this delivered to your email, along with my special offers, giveaways, and promotions, join the Criminal Law Community (I respect your privacy and will not give or sell your information to anyone).
0 Comments

Acts Sufficient to Reduce Murder to Voluntary Manslaughter under a Heat of Passion Theory

2/8/2012

2 Comments

 
When someone kills another in the heat of passion, the murder may be reduced to voluntary manslaughter. 

The elements, or requirements, necessary to find heat of passion voluntary manslaughter are:  1) the victim provoked the defendant, 2) the provocation caused the defendant to act rashly and under the influence of intense emotion, obscuring his judgment and reasoning, and 3) the provocation would have caused the average person to act rashly.

Not everything a victim does can be sufficiently provocative that it will support a voluntary manslaughter conviction (as opposed to murder).  Acts that may constitute adequate provocation (depending on the circumstances) include:

1.  A violent physical attack by the victim.
2.  Mutual combat or a fight between the defendant and victim, as long as the defendant did not start the fight.
3.  The victim's murder of a member of the defendant's family.
4.  A spouse's adultery.

Check out this post for examples of acts that will not justify reduction of murder to voluntary manslaughter.

For more in-depth information about the differences between murder and voluntary manslaughter, check out this article.

For more information like this delivered to your email, along with my special offers, giveaways, and promotions, join the Criminal Law Community (I respect your privacy and will not give or sell your information to anyone).
2 Comments

Life "of Leisure" on Death Row?

1/25/2012

2 Comments

 
Danny Robbie Hembree is on death row at Central Prison in Raleigh, N.C.  In an editorial letter he sent to his hometown paper, the Gaston Gazette, he describes himself as "a gentleman of lesiure [sic], watching color TV in the A.C., reading, taking naps at will, eating three well balanced meals a day." 

Hembree taunts his readers with the costs of his trial and upkeep, as well as the relative comfort in which he lives on death row.  He explains that he has access to "free medical care 24/7" at a new 55 million dollar facility.

Humbree, 50, was convicted of murdering two North Carolina women and a 17-year-old girl.  Like many states, no one has been executed in North Carolina since 2006 because of legal challenges over lethal injections and whether a physician must oversee executions.

"Is the public aware that the chances of my lawful murder taking place in the next 20 years if ever are very slim?" Hembree asked. 

Hembree states that he "is ready to except [sic] his unjust punishment and face God Almighty with a clear conscience."  He taunts, "Kill me if you can, suckers. Ha! Ha! Ha!"

You can see Henbree's handwritten letter here.

*To receive interesting crime and criminal law news stories like this, as well as other crime facts and information, join the Criminal Law Community.
2 Comments

Inquiry of Prosecutor Sought after Man Exonerated after 25 Years in Prison

12/20/2011

0 Comments

 
Michael Morton, 57, was exonerated after spending 25 years in a Texas prison for killing his wife.  His attorneys are now seeking a "court of inquiry" to examine whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by withholding exculpatory evidence.

If approved, a judge would be selected to preside over the inquiry.  A district or county attorney would assist examining witnesses and evidence.

Prosecutorial misconduct (specifically, prosecutors withholding evidence) is a common factor in cases where the defendant is later exonerated.

Read about a similar story by entering my free book giveaway- Chasing Justice:  My Story of Freeing Myself After Two Decades on Death Row for a Crime I Didn't Commit" by Kerry Max Cook.

Or buy that book:
0 Comments

Book Giveaway!

12/14/2011

0 Comments

 
I'm giving away an autographed hardcover copy of Chasing Justice: My Story of Freeing Myself After Two Decades on Death Row for a Crime I Didn't Commit" by Kerry Max Cook.

The book has received excellent reviews:

"Chasing Justice is captivating. . . .  It is going to break through political barriers and be a catalyst for reform."  (Sister Helen Prejean, author of Dead Man Walking)

"Chasing Justice is an immensely compelling story that is hard to believe.  If it were fiction, no one would believe it.  But it's not, and Kerry Cook's account of his nightmare is fascinating."  (John Grisham, best-selling author)

"Deserves a wide readership alongside John Grisham's The Innocent Man."  (Publishers Weekly)

"Cook's story is so gripping that only a heart of steel won't break after reading it."  (People Magazine)

Sign up to win Chasing Justice by January 15, 2012!

Or buy the book:
0 Comments

Documentary Filmmaker Emphasizes Need to Understand Legal Background and Framework in Murder and Mystery Films

12/8/2011

2 Comments

 
Joe Bailey Jr., the director of an award-winning documentary, "Incendiary," told CNN that legal knowledge gave him confidence in the choices they made when making the film. 

Bailey's film, "Incendiary," explores the legal, scientific, and political impact of a Texas arson murder case.  Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in 2004 after being convicted of murder in the house fire deaths of his three young children.  The film questions the scientific accuracy of arson investigations and the legal ramifications of a death sentence.

Bailey describes the film as "equal parts murder mystery, forensic investigation and political drama.  What we found so fascinating about the case and the story was the way that law and science and politics collide in this story in a really kind of life and death struggle."

Bailey had a law degree, which he found helpful in exploring the case.  Despite his law degree, Bailey consulted with his wife, who is an attorney, as well as law professors, to help him understand and portray his subject in depth. 

"I feel that a lot of people who are making films about legal things occasionally get things wrong, and it's really frustrating," Bailey told CNN.  "But more often they'll gloss over the process and the legal meat of a subject because they're afraid of it."

That's the essence of why I consult with writers and filmmakers.  I remove the doubt and fear out of criminal law topics, and help you get it right.  You don't have to be a lawyer to create authentic and knowledgeable crime and legal projects.  But it helps to have a knowledgeable, experienced criminal lawyer in your corner. 

Contact me for a free initial consultation.  Or sign up to receive my FREE Writer's Guide:  Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.
2 Comments
<<Previous
Forward>>
    Get your FREE E-Book revealing The Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama:
    Send My Free E-Book!

    Author

    Blythe Leszkay is a successful and experienced criminal attorney, criminal law professor, and consultant to writers and filmmakers.  See About Me.  This blog is intended to answer common criminal law questions, dispel misconceptions, and explain misunderstood criminal law concepts.  It is also a place to discuss any crime or law related topics of interest.  Contact me for a free initial consultation on your film or writing project.

    Categories

    All
    Appeals
    Burden Of Proof
    Celebrity Crime
    Common Questions
    Constitution
    Consulting Services
    Courtroom
    Crime In The News
    Crime Novels
    Crime Tv
    Death Penalty
    Defenses
    Evidence
    Extortion
    Hate Crimes
    International Crime
    Juvenile Crime
    Legal Comedy
    Legal Definitions
    Legal Drama
    Manslaughter
    Movies
    Murder
    Search And Seizure
    Serial Killers
    Sex Crimes
    Supreme Court
    Trial
    True Crime
    Writing Tips

    RSS Feed

      Get Email Updates

    Join!
    Loading
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.