End-of-Chapter Material
Summary
Mental illness plays a significant role in the criminal justice system and can impact criminal prosecutions in numerous ways. All defendants have a constitutional right to be mentally competent during all criminal proceedings. Competency requires the defendant to understand the nature of the proceedings against him and be able to participate in his own defense. Competency is viewed at the time of the court proceedings and is fluid. Competency is not a defense to criminal conduct; it is a constitutional right. If a person is incompetent, they are committed to a mental institution until their competence is “restored.” When a criminal defendant is incompetent and non-restorable, the criminal prosecution is dismissed without prejudice, meaning that the prosecution can re-file criminal charges once the defendant regains competency.
Insanity is a defense to criminal behavior and is static. Insanity is measured at the time the defendant engaged in the criminal act. The federal government and every state except Montana, Utah, Kansas, and Idaho recognize the insanity defense. The policy supporting the insanity defense is the lack of control a defendant has over their conduct; punishing the legally insane has no deterrent effect.
Four insanity defenses are recognized in the United States: M’Naghten, irresistible impulse, substantial capacity, and Durham. The M’Naghten rule is cognitive and excuses criminal conduct when the defendant is suffering from a mental defect or disease that prevents the defendant from knowing the nature or quality of conduct or from knowing that the conduct is wrong. The irresistible impulse test adds a volitional component and excuses conduct the defendant cannot control because of a mental defect or disease. The substantial capacity test (also known as the Model Penal Code test) softens the requirements to substantial, rather than total, capacity to appreciate the criminality of conduct or to conform conduct to the law. Finally, the Durham rule is currently recognized only in New Hampshire, and excuses conduct that is the product of a mental disease or defect.
In Alaska, a person is not guilty by reason of insanity if the person, as a result of a mental disease or defect, in unable to appreciate the nature and quality of their criminal act. This is the first prong of the M’Naghten rule. Alaska has also adopted a guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) verdict which occurs when, as a result of a mental disease or defect, the person lacks the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct or they are unable to conform their conduct to the law. Alaska GMBI verdict is punitive as it precludes a mentally ill defendant from being released on parole if still suffering from a mental illness.
Insanity is a perfect affirmative defense. The defendant bears the burden of proving its existence. GMBI can be raised by either the defendant or the state. A verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity” results in an acquittal for the offense. Although the defendant may be committed to a mental institution, the person is not criminally responsible for their conduct. A GBMI verdict requires the person to be committed to a mental institution for treatment of their mental illness, and then to prison to serve the remainder of their term of imprisonment.
Diminished capacity can operate as a defense, but only to specific intent crimes. A person may claim diminished capacity if, because of a mental disease or defect, they were unable to form the requisite mental state of intentionally.
The infancy defense existed at common law and excused conduct when the defendant was too young to form the culpable mental state for the offense. Codified juvenile justice systems have supplanted the infancy defense. The majority of juveniles who commit criminal acts are adjudicated within the juvenile system and not the adult system. Juveniles have nearly all of the procedural rights that are available to adults. Juveniles are not convicted of crimes, but are adjudicated delinquent. For the most serious crimes, or the most dangerous juvenile offenders, the government can seek a discretionary waiver to have the case prosecuted in adult criminal court. The government must prove that the minor is not amenable to treatment to be successful in a discretionary waiver. The criteria for such decisions generally include the nature of the offense, the sophistication it requires, the defendant’s prior criminal history, and the threat the defendant poses to public safety. Certain crimes – namely serious felonies committed by older minors – are automatically waived into the adult court.
The law also recognizes the excuse defenses of involuntary intoxication and mistake. Voluntary intoxication is not permitted as a defense, but may be relied upon to negate specific intent crimes. Involuntary intoxication, which is intoxication achieved unknowingly, under duress, or through fraud, is normally analyzed under the voluntary act element of the crime. Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Individuals are expected to know the laws of their jurisdiction. Mistake of law, which means the defendant does not know conduct is illegal, functions as a defense if the mistake is based on a official pronouncement by an authorized public official. Mistake of law is not a defense if the mistake is rooted in incorrect legal advice from an attorney or by a police officer. Mistake of fact is a defense if the facts as the defendant reasonably believes facts that negate the requisite intent.
Entrapment is also an excuse defense. While some jurisdictions recognize an subjective entrapment defense, which focuses on the defendant’s predisposition, Alaska has adopted the objective entrapment defense. The objective entrapment approach excuses conduct if the pressure by law enforcement would induce a reasonable, law-abiding person to commit the crime. The defendant’s predisposition (i.e., criminal record) is not relevant since the focus is on law enforcement tactics, not the defendant’s motivations.
Key Takeaways
- The four states that do not recognize the insanity defense are Montana, Utah, Kansas, and Idaho.
- The four versions of the insanity defense are M’Naghten, irresistible impulse, substantial capacity, and Durham.
- The two elements of the M’Naghten insanity defense are the following:
- The defendant must be suffering from a mental defect or disease at the time of the crime.
- The defendant did not know the nature or quality of the criminal act he or she committed or that the act was wrong because of the mental defect or disease.
- The two elements of the irresistible impulse insanity defense are the following:
- The defendant must be suffering from a mental defect or disease at the time of the crime.
- The defendant could not control his or her criminal conduct because of the mental defect or disease.
- The substantial capacity test softens the second element of the M’Naghten and irresistible impulse insanity defenses. Under the substantial capacity test, the defendant must lack substantial, not total, capacity to appreciate the criminality of conduct or to control or conform conduct to the law.
- The Durham insanity defense excuses criminal conduct when it is caused by a mental disease or defect.
- The criminal defendant pleading not guilty by reason of insanity must produce evidence to rebut the presumption that criminal defendants are sane.
- The insanity defense is generally a perfect affirmative defense.
- The diminished capacity defense that may be used to negate an intentional mental state.
- The insanity defense exonerates the defendant from criminal responsibility. Mental incompetence to stand trial delays the criminal trial until mental competency is regained.
- Infancy is a common law defense to an adult criminal prosecution if the defendant is too young to form the requisite criminal intent for the offense.
- The purpose of an adult criminal prosecution is punishment; the purpose of a juvenile adjudication is rehabilitation of the minor before he or she becomes an adult.
- Voluntary intoxication may provide a defense if the intoxication prevents the defendant from forming the requisite criminal intent for the offense.
- Involuntary intoxication may be a defense analyzed under the voluntary act element of a crime.
- Mistake of law may provide a defense if the defendant believes his or her conduct is legal because of reliance on an official pronouncement by an authorized individual or entity.
- Mistake of law is not a defense when the defendant believes his or her conduct is legal because of reliance on the incorrect advice of an attorney, police officer, or probation officer.
- If the facts as the defendant believes them to be prevent the defendant from forming the requisite intent for the crime, mistake of fact may be a valid defense.
- Mistake of fact is not a defense to strict liability crimes because intent is not an element.
- The subjective entrapment defense focuses on the individual defendant, and provides a defense if law enforcement pressures the defendant to commit the crime against his or her will. If the defendant is predisposed to commit the crime without this pressure, the defendant will not be successful with the defense. Pursuant to the subjective entrapment defense, the defendant’s criminal record is admissible to prove the defendant’s predisposition.
- The objective entrapment defense focuses on law enforcement behavior, and provides a defense if the tactics law enforcement uses would convince a reasonable, law-abiding person to commit the crime. Under the objective entrapment defense, the defendant’s criminal record is irrelevant and inadmissible. Alaska has adopted the objective entrapment excuse defense.
Answer to Exercises
From Culpability (Insanity)
- Jeffrey will not be successful in a jurisdiction that recognizes the M’Naghten insanity defense. Although Jeffrey has a mental defect or disease, schizophrenia, Jeffrey’s behavior in hiding the victims’ corpses indicates that he knows his behavior is wrong. Thus, Jeffrey cannot produce evidence establishing the second element of M’Naghten. For the same reason, in Alaska, Jeffrey would not be successful in arguing insanity or guilty but mentally ill.
