1 William and Mary Review of Virginia Law Volume 2 Issue 2 Article 5 Insanity, Criminal Responsibility and Durham David Oscar Williams Jr. Repository Citation David Oscar Williams Jr., Insanity, Criminal Responsibility and Durham, 2 Wm. & Mary Rev. Va. L. 103 (1955), Copyright c 1955 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository.
2 Insanity, Criminal Responsibility and Durham The advent of a judicially-sponsored new test of insanity is an event of first importance in the legal world and justifies a historical survey of the evolution of the existing tests. The logic of the law's recognition of mental incapacity as a defense to crime is simple enough. Usually crime involves the concurrence of a wrongful act and a wrongful intent. If the defendant because of his mental condition was incapable of entertaining the intent, he cannot be held guilty of the crime. The man who kills another by unavoidable accident is not a murderer. The man who walks off with a suitcase, believing it his own, is not a thief. So, too, the legally insane man who kills or takes possession of property is not held guilty. Psychiatrists may object to the legal rule that although intent is essential, motive is irrelevant. Once it is determined that a man intended to do the act, the inquiry is at an end; the law is not interested in why he meant to do it. To the psychologist this is a curious notion, for he cannot conceive of trying to understand human behavior without asking why the individual acted as he did. The aim of law is not only to protect society, but also to insure justice to the person convicted of crime. A formula defining responsibility or irresponsibility in human behavior cannot do complete justice to individuals of unequal intellect or to those afflicted with mental illness or emotional instability. Of all the problems involved in the subject of mental unsoundness as a defense to a crime, the greatest difference of opinion on the part of the courts has centered around the legal tests of insanity. An early English case, decided in 1724, is usually cited as the source of the so-called "Wild Beast Test." In Arnold's case 1 Judge Tracy attempted to define for the jury the line between the mental unsoundness which will relieve from responsibility and that which will not, as follows: "It is not every kind of frantic humor or something unaccountable in a man's action that points him out to be such a madman as to be exempted from punishment; it must be a man that is totally deprived of his understand How.St.Tr. 695 (1724).
3 ing and memory and doth not know what he is doing, no more than an infant, than a brute, or a wild beast, such a one is never the object of punishment." 2 Earl Ferret's case, 3 decided in 1760, held that "total want of reason would acquit the prisoner but that if there were a partial degree of reason and a competent use of it sufficient to have restrained those passions, which produced the crime; if there be thought and design; and faculty to distinguish the nature of actions; to discern the difference between moral good and evil, responsibility attaches." 4 Hadfield's case, 5 decided in 1800, involved a veteran of many wars who had been discharged from the army on the ground of insanity and was being tried for shooting at George III. It seems the veteran was suffering from delusions that he was to sacrifice himself for the world's salvation. He was defended by Lord Erskine, a brilliant criminal lawyer, who introduced a new concept into the law: "delusion" as a test of responsibility. Many years later Judge Doe in deciding the New Hampshire case of State v. Pike 6 said that "Hadfield's acquittal was not a judicial adoption of delusion as the test in the place of knowledge of right and wrong; it was probably an instance of the bewildering effect of Erskine's adroitness, rhetoric and eloquence." 7 In 1840 one Oxford was'tried for shooting at Queen Victoria. 8 Lord Chief Justice Denman told the jury: If some controlling disease was, in truth, the acting power within him, which he could not resist, the defendant would not be responsible. The question is whether the prisoner was labouring under that species of insanity which satisfies you that he was quite unaware of the nature, character, and consequences of the act he was committing, or in other words, whether he was under the influence of a diseased mind and was really unconscious at the time he was comitting the act, that it was a crime How.St.Tr. 695, 765 (1724). '19 How.St.Tr. 886 (1760). 'Id. at How.St.Tr (1800). 649 N.H. 399 (1869). 7Id. at Reg. v. Oxford, 9 Car.& P. 525, 173 Eng.Rep. 941 (1840). 9 Id. at 546, 173 Eng.Rep. 941, 950.
4 The phrase here used, "the nature, character, and consequences of the act," was later adopted by the House of Lords in M'Naghten's case,' 0 and the use of the words "controlling disease... which he could not resist" suggests the irresistible impulse test." In 1843 Daniel M'Naghten shot and killed Drummond, private secretary to Sir Robert Peel, believing him to be Peel. The defendant was laboring under an insane delusion that he was being hounded by his enemies and that Peel was one of them. The defense was insanity, and the medical evidence was in substance that the prisoner was affected by morbid delusions which carried him beyond the power of his own control and left him with no perception of right and wrong. The accused was not capable of exercising any control over acts which had connection with his delusion. The jury found him not guilty on the ground of insanity. The M'Naghten Rules were formulated in 1843 as a result of the public outcry over the acquittal of M'Naghten. The House of Lords addressed certain questions to the Judges of England concerning the law of insanity. The answers have since become known as the M'Naghten Rules. 13 The crucial portion of the reply was the following: 'To establish a defense on the grounds of insanity it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, that he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong." 14 These criteria, although based upon no actual case, became the "right and wrong" test which is today applied in England, Canada, and practically all our American states.' 5 New Hampshire recognizes no particular test; it is the function of the jury to determine upon all the evidence whether the accused was Clark & F. 200, 8 Eng.Rep. 718 (1843). 11 Weihofen, Insanity as a Defense in Criminal Lan 24 (1933) Clark & F. 200, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (1943). Is Clark & Marshall, A T isen the Law of Crime 134 (1952). "Reg.v. M'Naghten, 10 Clark & F. 200, 205, 173 Eng.Rep. 718, 722 (1843). 1~Brick, The Law of Crime 277 (1946).
5 capable of entertaining criminal intent and hence was responsible for his act. 16 The "right and wrong" test has been the subject of much criticism.' 7 Cardozo, in the case of People v. Schmidt, I8 after an exhaustive review of M'Naghten Rules cases, determined that the right-wrong test meant inability "morally" to distinguish right from wrong. Lord Goddard, Chief Justice of England, in the case of Rex v. Holmes' 9 has interpreted the word "wrong" as meaning "legal wrong." Burdick says there are probably very few cases in which distinctions between "moral" and "legal" wrong are necessary. 20 Attempts made in England a few years after the M'Naghten case to establish "irresistible impulse" as a defense to crime were unsuccessful. 21 In Regina v. Thomas the defense was impulsive insanity. The court held there was no evidence of insanity at all and that impulsive insanity was the last refuge of a hopeless defense. 2 3 In the case of Rex v. True 24 the English court said: "There is no foundation for the suggestion that the rule derived from M'Naghten's case has been in any sense relaxed." 25 However the British Royal Commission on Capital Punishment ( ) has made the following finding: "The gravamen of the charge against the M'Naghten Rules is that they are not in harmony with modem medical science, which as we have seen, is reluctant to divide the mind into separate compartments-the intellect, the emotions and the will-but looks at it as a whole and considers that insanity distorts and impairs the actions of the mind as a whole." 26 Many insane persons may be fully able to distinguish what is right from what is wrong, yet have no power to choose and do the right because they are driven by an uncontrollable force or irresistible impulse to do the wrong. 27 The "irresistible im- 16 State v. Jones, 50 N.H. 369 (1870). 17 Weihofen, Insanity as a Defense in Crimid Law 29 (1933). 1s 216 N.Y N.E. 945 (1915) W.L.R. 686 (1953). 20 Burdick, The Law of Crime 280 (1946). :2 eg. v. Stokes, 3 Car.& K. 185, 175 Eng.Rep. 222 (1848). 227 Crim.App. 36 (1911). 2a Ibid. :4 16 Crim.App. 164 (1922).,:Id. at 170. efootnote 30 Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862, 871 (D.C. Cir. 1954). 21 Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 2 So. 354 (1887).
6 pulse" test has been adopted in twenty-one American states and the District of Columbia. 28 Therefore in these states both the right and wrong test and the irresistible impulse test may be invoked as a defense to a crime. The Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals has approved the giving of an instruction embodying the definition of "irresistible impluse7 in the following cases: Boswell v. Commonwealth, 29 Dejarnette v. Commonwealth, 30 Hite v. Commonwealth, 31 Stover v. Commonwealth, 32 and Thurman v. Commonwealth. 33 In the 1952 case of Thompson v. CommonwealthM 4 it held that the lower court's instruction to the jury was erroneous when its definition of insanity failed to include the doctrine of "irresistible impulse." The case, however, was reversed and remanded on another point. Chief Justice Hudgins speaking for the Court said: There is no evidence tending to prove that his volitive powers were any more impaired than were his perceptive powers. The "irresistible impulse" doctrine is applicable only to that class of cases where the accused is able to understand the nature and consequences of his act and knows it is wrong, but his mind has become so impaired by disease that he is totally deprived of the mental power to control or restrain his act. 35 The Virginia Court has approved the following definition of "irresistible impulse": Is... an impulse induced by, and growing out of some mental disease affecting the volitive, as distinguished from the perceptive powers, so that the person afflicted, while able to understand the nature and consequences of the act charged against him and to perceive that it is wrong, is unable because of such mental disease, to resist the impulse to do it. It is to be distinguished from mere passion or overwhelming emotion not growing out of, and connected with, a disease Burdick, The Lan of Crime 278 (1946). The states which have adopted the irresistible impulse test are: Ala, Ark Colo., Conn., Del., Ga., Ill., Ky., La., Mass., Mich., Mont., N.M., Ohio, Penn., Utah, Vt., Va., Wash. and Wyo Gratt. (61 Va.) 860 (1871). s0 75 Va. 867 (1881) Va. 489, 31 S.E. 895 (1898) Va. 780, 22 S.E. 874 (1895). ss 107 Va. 912, 60 S.E. 99 (1908). s' 193 Va. 704, 70 S.E.2d 284 (1952). as Id. at 717, 70 S.E.2d 284, 292.
7 of the mind. Frenzy arising solely from the passion of anger and jealousy regardless of how furious, is not insanity. 38 The Federal District Court for the District of Columbia recognized the right-wrong test in United States v. Guiteau, 3 7 but the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia refused to extend it in the case of Taylor v. United States.38 The court rejected "emotional insanity" as a defense, citing with approval the following from the trial court's instruction to the jury: Whatever may be the cry of scientific experts, the law does not recognize but condemns the doctrine of emotional insanity-that a man may be sane up until a moment before he commits a crime, insane while he does it, and sane again soon afterwards. Such doctrine would be dangerous in the extreme. The law does not recognize it; and a jury cannot without violating their oaths. 39 This position was reaffirmed in Snell v. United States. 40 In 1929 the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of Smith v. United States 41 declared: "We have no hesitation in declaring it to be the law of this district that, in cases where insanity is interposed as a defense, and the facts are sufficient to call for the application of the rule of irresistible impluse, the jury should be so charged." 42 In 1945 the Supreme Court of the United States 43 upheld the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in its refusal to reverse Fisher v. United States 44 on the appellants contention that an instruction should be given on "diminished responsibility" for a mental disorder short of insanity. Justices Murphy, Frankfurter, and Rutledge dissented, while Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration of the case. The case of United States v. Baldi 45 in 1951 involved a prosecution for murder which came before six courts of record, be- 's193 Va , 70 S.E.2d 284, 292 (1952). '7 12 D.C. (1 kackey) 498, 10 F. 161, (1882) App.D.C. 27 (1895). P9 Id. at App.D.C. 501, 524 (1900). &136 F.2d 548 (1929). " Fisher v. United States, 328 U.S. 463 (1945) F.2d 28 (D.C. Cir. 1945) F.2d 540 (3rd Cir. 1951).
8 fore a state board of pardons, before a lunacy commission. 46 Upon appeal, the conviction of the accused was upheld. But in a dissenting opinion Chief Justice Biggs of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit spoke out against the century-old legal formula of responsibility of the State of Pennsylvania: "Changes can be effected and reason can be brought to the law of criminal insanity. The rule of M'Naghten's case was created by decision. Perhaps it is not too much to think that it might be altered by the same means." 47 On July 1, 1954, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of Durham v. United States" s departed from the famous M'Naghten Rules and the irresistible impulse test. The defendant, who had a background of four commitments to a mental hospital, was convicted in the District Court of housebreaking despite his defense of insanity. On appeal, the case was reversed and remanded. Not only did the court speak out against the inadequacies of the right-wrong and irresistible impulse tests, but it firmly laid down the principle that these previously well-established precedents are no longer to be regarded as exclusive. Judge Bazelon speaking for the court stated the new test as follows: It is simply that an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect. We use disease in the sense of a condition which is considered capable of either improving or deteriorating and which may be either congenital, or the result of injury, or the residual effect of a physical or mental disease. 49 Invoking its "inherent power" 50 to define insanity, the court set forth an instruction to the jury which would be used under the rule announced: If you the jury believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not suffering from a diseased or defective mental condition at the time he committed the criminal act charged, you may find him guilty. If you believe he was 1e Roche, Criminality and Menta lllness-two Faces of tlh Rev. 320, 322 (1955) F.2d 540, 568 (3rd Cir. 1951). "8214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954). 49 Id. at 874, F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954). Same Coin, 22 U.Chi.L.
9 suffering from a diseased or defective mental condition when he committed the act, but believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was not the product of such mental abnormality, you may find him guilty. Unless you believe beyond a reasonable doubt either that he was not suffering from a diseased or defective mental condition, or that the act was not the product of such abnormality, you must find the accused not guilty by reason of insanity. Thus your task would not be completed upon finding, if you did find, that the accused suffered from a mental disease or defect. He would still be responsible for his unlawful act if there was no causal connection between such mental abnormality and the act. These questions must be determined by you from the facts which you find to be fairly deductible from the testimony and the evidence in this case. 51 The Circuit Court in the Durham case thus adopted a test which is similar to the one promulgated in 1870 by the New Hampshire case of State v. Pike. 52 In this early New Hampshire case the substance of the instruction by Judge Doe 3 3 was:... if they found that the defendant killed Brown in a manner that would be criminal and unlawful if the defendant were sane-the verdict should be "not guilty by reason of insanity' if the killing was the offspring or product of mental disease in the defendant; that neither delusion nor knowledge of right and wrong, nor design or cunning in planning and executing the killing and escaping or avoiding detection, nor ability to recognize acquaintances, or to labor or transact business or manage affairs, is, as a matter of law, a test of mental disease; but that all symptoms and all tests of mental disease are purely matters of fact to be determined by the jury.54 Prior to Durham v. United States, 55 the New Hampshire solution to the problem of mental irresponsibility had never F.2d 862, 875 (D.C. Cir. 1954). The court said in footnote 46, [id. at 874]: "Our approach is similar to that of the Supreme Court of California in People v. Maughs, 1906, 149 Cal. 253t 86 P. 187, 191, where the court prospectively invali. dated a previously accepted instruction, saying, 'We think the time has come to say that in all future cases which shall arise and where, after this warning, this instruction shall be given, this court will hold the giving of it to be so prejudicial to the rights of a defendent secured to him by our Constitution and laws, as to call for the reversal of any judgment which may be rendered against him.'" s49 N.H. 399 (1870). 58 See Reik, The Doe-Ray Correspondence: A Pioneer Collaboration in the Jurisprudence of Mental Disease, 63 Yale L.J. 183 (1953). See also Judge Doe's dissenting opinion in Boardman v. Woodman, 47 N.H. 120, 148 (1866) N.H. 399, 402 (1870) F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954).
10 been squarely adopted anywhere outside its state of origin except in Montana. 56 The Supreme Court of Washington in 1909 rejected the New Hampshire insanity test in the case of State v. Craig: 57 "In so far then as we are concerned, whether insanity be a question of science or of law, there should be no objection to the keeping of the law in the law courts, leaving science in the control of its undisputed field." 58 The New Hampshire test was also rejected by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in the case of Eckert v. State 59 in which the court upheld the refusal of the lower court to instruct on mental disease as a defense to a murder charge. In May, 1954 the Supreme Court of New Mexico in the case of State v. White 6o adopted an extension of the M'Naghten Rules. Citing the Report of the British Royal Commission on Capital Punishment ( ), p. 111, the court established the following rule: "The jury must be satisfied that at the time of committing the act, the accused as a result of disease of the mind * * * [sic] (a) did not know the nature and quality of the act or (b) did not know that it was wrong or (c) was incapable of preventing himself from committing it.'"61 In the case of Stewart v. United States, 62 decided fifteen days after the Durham decision, 63 the accused was convicted of first degree murder committed in robbing a grocery store. On appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia through Judge Bazelon reversed and remanded the case stating that the mental disease or mental defect test which was laid down in the Durham case would be applicable upon retrial. It is worthy of note that the court evidenced a tendency to reconsider the advisability of the diminished responsibility test which it had rejected in Fisher v. United States: 64 "We have concluded that reconsideration of our decision in Fisher should wait until we can appraise the results of the broadened test of 56 Weihofen, The Flowering of New Hampshire, 22 U.ChLL.Rev. 363 (19SS) Wash.. 66, 100 P. 167 (1909) Wash. 66,. _100 P. 167, Wis. 160, 89 N.W. 826 (1902) N.M. 324,270 P.2d 727 (1954) N.M P.2d 727, F.2d 879 (D.C Cir. 1954). "214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 19S4) F.2d 28 (D.C. Cir. 1954).
11 criminal responsibility which we recently announced in Durham."6s The court in the Durham decision said: We find that as an exclusive criterion the right-wrong test is inadequate in that (a) it does not take sufficient account of psychic realities and scientific knowledge, and (b) it is based upon one symptom and so cannot validly be applied in all circumstances. We find that the "irresistible impulse" test is also inadequate in that it gives no recognition of mental illness characterized by brooding and reflection and so relegates acts caused by such illness to the application of the inadequate right-wrong test. 66 In March, 1955 the Court of Appeals of Maryland in the case of Salinger v. Superintendent of Spring Grove State Hospita 67 and the case of Thomas v. Maryland 8 8 discussed the Durham decision but did not adopt its test of criminal responsibility. Judge Collins speaking for the court in the Thomas case stated: "There is no evidence of a mental disease or mental defect to satisfy the New Hampshire rule adopted in the Durham and Stewart cases, supra, which we do not here adopt." 69 In the light of these recent developments the question arises as to whether Virginia should accept the new test for criminal responsibility by giving more weight to the rationale of the Durham decision based upon present-day scientific knowledge than it did to the New Hampshire decision of As late as 1952 the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia after quoting a definition of "irresistible impulse" in the case of Thompson v. Commonwealth 7 ' stated: "Many unsuccessful attempts have been made to formulate a more accurate definition of legal insanity."7 2 *s214 F.2d 879, 883 (D.C. Cir. 1954) F.2d 862, 874 (D.C. Cir. 1954). Md A.2d 907 (1955). s. Md A.2d 913 (1955). GoId. at A.2d 913, State v. Pike. 49 N.H. 399 (1870) Va. 704, 70 S.E.2d 284 (1952). 7 Id. at 717, 70 S.E.2d 284, 292.
12 Dr. Jay L. Hoffman, First Assistant Physician at St. Elizabeth's Hospital, Washington, D. C., has said: Under the Durham decision the psychiatrist is not restricted in giving testimony in regard to the insanity of an accused. No longer will he be shackled by the right and wrong test and the irresistible impulse test. The psychiatrist will have greater freedom to contribute to the courtroom solution of separating the criminal from the insane. Due to the very vagueness of the court in setting forth the definition of "mental disease" and "mental defect," the psychiatrist will be able to share his knowledge with the court and jury as he learns more and more about mental diseases. 73 As was stated in Hollovay v. United States, 74 the principal function of the psychiatrist is to inform the jury of the character of the mental disease. By permitting the psychiatrist to testify more fully under the new test adopted by the Durham case, the jury would be greatly aided in arriving at a more intelligent and equitable decision as to the criminal responsibility of the defendant. While an immediate reaction to Durham is a legitimate fear that there will be too many acquittals upon the ground of insanity, there is no solid reason for anticipating that use of the new test will have any such result. What constitutes mental disease and how it operates are purely medical questions, and under the new test the legal system will not attempt to impose upon medical witnesses concepts which they may or may not consider correct and adequate. They will be completely untrammeled in their approach, and the new test will be compatible with all future developments in the psychiatric field. It is submitted that Virginia should study the Durham decision with a view to adopting a more modem and scientific test of insanity to replace the "right and wrong" and the "irresistible impulse" tests. David Oscar Williams, Jr. 78 Personal Interview, April 12, , 148 F.2d 665 (D.C. Cir. 1945).
Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Cleveland State Law Review Law Journals 1963 M'Naghten v. Durham Lee E. Skeel Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev
St. John's Law Review Volume 40 Issue 1 Volume 40, December 1965, Number 1 Article 5 April 2013 Legislative Changes in New York Criminal Insanity Statutes St. John's Law Review Follow this and additional
The ICFAI University From the SelectedWorks of G.V Mahesh Nath 2009 A mad man is punished by his madness alone A Defence of Insanity G.V Mahesh Nath Available at: https://works.bepress.com/gv_nath/2/ A
THE BASICS OF THE INSANITY DEFENSE Joseph A. Smith Although not as common, or effective, as it may seem on TV or in movies, the insanity defense is still used in criminal trials today. All but four states,
Nebraska Law Review Volume 34 Issue 4 Article 11 1955 Criminal Law The Need for a New Conception of Insanity as a Defense to a Crime in Nebraska Lyman C. Johnson University of Nebraska College of Law Follow
William & Mary Law Review Volume 3 Issue 2 Article 24 Procedure - Is Accused "Present" at Trial While Testifying Under the Influence of Tranquilizers Emeric Fischer William & Mary Law School Repository
insanity M.A. SANUSI V THE STATE (1984) LPELR-3007(SC) OPUTA JSC - Proof of insanity provides a complete answer to the charge as the accused will not be "criminally responsible for the act". That is one
Washington University Law Review Volume 1973 Issue 1 Symposium: United States v. Brawner January 1973 Introduction: The Insanity Defense in the District of Columbia Follow this and additional works at:
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2005 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
YesWeScan: The FEDERAL CASES Case No. 16,287a. [2 Hayw. & H. 319.] 1 UNITED STATES V. SICKLES. Criminal Court, District of Columbia. April 20, 1859. MURDER PRESUMPTION OF MALICE INSANITY AS DEFENSE PROVINCE
Catholic University Law Review Volume 5 Issue 1 Article 6 1955 A Proposal for a Fountainhead of Rationality in the Jurisprudence of Insanity Natalie R. Yeager Gennaro J. Consalvo Follow this and additional
Louisiana Law Review Volume 20 Number 4 June 1960 Criminal Law - Insanity - Burden of Proof Bernard E. Boudreaux Jr. Repository Citation Bernard E. Boudreaux Jr., Criminal Law - Insanity - Burden of Proof,
Alabama ALA. CODE 12-21- 203 any relating to the past sexual behavior of the complaining witness CIRCUMSTANCE F when it is found that past sexual behavior directly involved the participation of the accused
8 th ANNUAL NATIONAL PROSECUTORS CONFERENCE SATURDAY, 19 MAY 2007 DUBLIN CASTLE CONFERENCE CENTRE Isobel Kennedy, SC Law Library ~ Defence of Diminished Responsibility 1.GENERAL 8 th Annual National Prosecutors
Name Change Laws Current as of February 23, 2017 MAP relies on the research conducted by the National Center for Transgender Equality for this map and the statutes found below. Alabama An applicant must
THE QUALIFICATION OF PSYCHIATRISTS AS EXPERTS IN LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ISRAEL STRAUSS* On November 1, 1928, the Honorable Benjamin N. Cardozo, then the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of New York State,
STATE STANDARDS FOR EMERGENCY EVALUATION UPDATED: JULY 2018 200 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, SUITE 801 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22203 (703) 294-6001 TreatmentAdvocacyCenter.org Alabama ALA. CODE 22-52-91(a). When a law
Louisiana Law Review Volume 16 Number 4 A Symposium on Legislation June 1956 Criminal Law - Felony-Murder - Killing of Co- Felon William L. McLeod Jr. Repository Citation William L. McLeod Jr., Criminal
Nebraska Law Review Volume 36 Issue 3 Article 6 1957 The Winning National Moot Court Brief Patrick W. Healey University of Nebraska College of Law James M. Knapp University of Nebraska College of Law Jerrold
s of Limitations in All 50 s Nolo.com Page 6 of 14 Updated September 18, 2015 The chart below contains common statutes of limitations for all 50 states, expressed in years. We provide this chart as a rough
William Mitchell Law Review Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 4 1982 The Guilty But Mentally Ill Alternative Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation (1982)
Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction Twelfth Edition Chapter 3 Criminal Law The Nature and Purpose of Law (1 of 2) Law A rule of conduct, generally found enacted in the form of a statute, that proscribes
AL ALABAMA Ala. Code 10-2B-15.02 (2009) [Transferred, effective January 1, 2011, to 10A-2-15.02.] No monetary penalties listed. May invalidate in-state contracts made by unqualified foreign corporations.
Alabama No Code of Ala. 30-5-5 (c)(1) A court may issue mutual protection orders only if a separate petition has been filed by each party. Alaska No Alaska Stat. 18.66.130(b) A court may not grant protective
The chart below is a summary of the relevant portions of state animal cruelty laws that provide for court-ordered evaluation, counseling, treatment, prevention, and/or educational programs. The full text
Catholic University Law Review Volume 1 Issue 2 Article 3 1951 The Federal Trial Court and the Jury Charge James W. Eardley John F. Lally Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview
Elder Financial Abuse and State Mandatory Reporting Laws for Financial Institutions Prepared by CUNA s State Government Affairs Overview Financial crimes and exploitation can involve the illegal or improper
DOUBLE JEOPARDY: A NEW TRIAL AFTER APPELLATE REVERSAL FOR INSUFFICENT EVIDENCE A federal jury finds a defendant innocent and judgment is rendered. Under generally accepted principles of double jeopardy
Judgment rendered June 20, 2012. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 922, La. C.Cr.P. No. 46,814-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * STATE
Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law. Act of the Regular Session 0 State of Arkansas As Engrossed: S// S// H// H// st General Assembly A Bill Regular
The Catholic Lawyer Volume 5, Winter 1959, Number 1 Article 3 Prosecution Problems under the Durham Rule Oliver Gasch Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl Part of
University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 10-1-1960 The Working of the New Hampshire Doctrine of Criminal Insanity John P. Reid Follow this and additional works
Edinburgh Research Explorer The New Mental Disorder Defences Citation for published version: Maher, G 2013, 'The New Mental Disorder Defences: Some Comments' Scots Law Times, pp. 1-4. Link: Link to publication
APPENDIX D STATE PERPETUITIES STATUTES 218 STATE PERPETUITIES STATUTES State Citation PERMITS PERPETUAL TRUSTS Alaska Alaska Stat. 34.27.051, 34.27.100 Delaware 25 Del. C. 503 District of Columbia D.C.
Urcid 1 Marisol Urcid Professor David Jordan Legal Research November 30, 2015 An intellectual disability should make a person ineligible for the death penalty. Cecil Clayton suffered a sawmill accident
Source: Weekly State Tax Report: News Archive > 2012 > 03/16/2012 > Perspective > States Adopt Deadline for Individual Returns; Some Opt Against Allowing Delay for Corporate Returns in 2012 2012 TM-WSTR
Louisiana Law Review Volume 23 Number 4 June 1963 Criminal Procedure - Court Consent to Plea Bargains Willie H. Barfoot Repository Citation Willie H. Barfoot, Criminal Procedure - Court Consent to Plea
Alabama legislated Three school Incompetency, insubordination, neglect of duty, immorality, failure to perform duties in a satisfactory manner, justifiable decrease in the number of teaching positions,
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1188 September Term, 1994 TIMOTHY JOHN ELLISON v. STATE OF MARYLAND Wilner, C.J. Alpert, Fischer, JJ. Opinion by Wilner, C.J. Filed: April 28, 1995
1 STATE V. NELSON, 1958-NMSC-018, 63 N.M. 428, 321 P.2d 202 (S. Ct. 1958) STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. David Cooper NELSON, Defendant-Appellant No. 6197 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1958-NMSC-018,
Present: All the Justices JONATHAN R. DANDRIDGE v. Record No. 031457 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY April 23, 2004 ALBERT R. MARSHALL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HENRICO COUNTY Gary A. Hicks, Judge
FINAL COPY 283 Ga. 191 S07A1352. LEWIS v. THE STATE. Thompson, Justice. Defendant Jeffrey Daniel Lewis was convicted of the felony murder of Richard Golden and possession of a firearm during the commission
Mental Health Laws Chapter Contents Introduction 3 The Meaning of Mental Illness 3 The Mental Health Act 4 Mental Illness and the Criminal Law 6 The Mental Health Court 7 The Mental Health Review Tribunal
CLARK v. ARIZONA 1 Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006) EXPLORING CASE LAW A teenager killed a police officer, believing that he was an alien. In Arizona, he could not use mental illness to argue a lower
CHAPTER I SANITY OFFENSES COMMITTED ON OR AFTER JULY 1, 1995 I:01 INSANITY BURDEN OF PROOF I:02 INSANITY DEFINED I:03 DEFINITIONS INSANITY I:04 INSTRUCTION ON FINDING OF NOT GUILTY BY REASON OF INSANITY
Laws Governing Data Security and Privacy U.S. Jurisdictions at a Glance UPDATED MARCH 30, 2015 State Statute Year Statute Alabama* Ala. Information Technology Policy 685-00 (Applicable to certain Executive
Nebraska Law Review Volume 52 Issue 1 Article 6 1973 Competency to Stand Trial in Nebraska Wayne Kreuscher University of Nebraska College of Law, firstname.lastname@example.org Follow this and additional
William & Mary Law Review Volume 6 Issue 1 Article 10 Constitutional Law - Privilege from Self- Incrimination - Application in State Courts Under Fourteenth Amendment. Malloy v. Hogan, 84 S. Ct. 1489 (1964)
STATUTES OF Know your obligation as a builder. Educating yourself on your state s statutes of repose can help protect your business in the event of a defect. Presented by 2-10 Home Buyers Warranty on behalf
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2012 TRAVIS EDWARDS, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D10-443 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed May 11, 2012. Appeal
DePaul Law Review Volume 7 Issue 1 Fall-Winter 1957 Article 14 Criminal Law - Police Need Not Surrender Fingerprints and Photograph After Acquittal DePaul College of Law Follow this and additional works
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 16-457 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS JOHN W. HATFIELD, III ********** APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH
Page D-1 ANNEX D REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION WT/DS285/2 13 June 2003 (03-3174) Original: English UNITED STATES MEASURES AFFECTING THE CROSS-BORDER
APPENDIX C STATE UNIFORM TRUST CODE STATUTES 122 STATE STATE UNIFORM TRUST CODE STATUTES CITATION Alabama Ala. Code 19-3B-101 19-3B-1305 Arkansas Ark. Code Ann. 28-73-101 28-73-1106 District of Columbia
Accountability-Sanctions Education Commission of the States 700 Broadway, Suite 801 Denver, CO 80203-3460 303.299.3600 Fax: 303.296.8332 www.ecs.org Student Accountability Initiatives By Michael Colasanti
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED JASON RODRIGUEZ, Appellant, v. Case No.
Montana Law Review Volume 55 Issue 2 Summer 1994 Article 12 July 1994 State v. Cowan: The Consequences of Montana's Abolition of the Insanity Defense Stephanie C. Stimpson Follow this and additional works
No. 16-5294 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JAMES EDMOND MCWILLIAMS, JR., Petitioner, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, COMMISSIONER, ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., Respondent. On Petition for
State Statutory Provisions Addressing Mutual Protection Orders Revised 2014 National Center on Protection Orders and Full Faith & Credit 1901 North Fort Myer Drive, Suite 1011 Arlington, Virginia 22209
548 U.S. 735 126 S. Ct. 2709 165 L. Ed. 2d 842 CLARK v. ARIZONA CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF ARIZONA. No. 05-5966. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued April 19, 2006. Decided June 29, 2006.
Brigham Young University Prelaw Review Volume 23 Article 8 4-1-2009 The Insanity of Men's Rea Kimberlee Allen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/byuplr BYU ScholarsArchive
UMKC LAW REVIEW DE JURE Vol. 2 Spring 2014 Pages 1-7 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG: HOW MISSOURI AND KANSAS APPROACH THE INSANITY DEFENSE Greg Doty* I. INTRODUCTION On November 28, 2009, James
State Prescription Monitoring Program Statutes and Regulations List 1 Research Current through May 2016. This project was supported by Grant No. G1599ONDCP03A, awarded by the Office of National Drug Control
Survey of State Laws on Credit Unions Incidental Powers Alabama Ala. Code 5-17-4(10) To exercise incidental powers as necessary to enable it to carry on effectively the purposes for which it is incorporated
Governance State Boards/Chiefs/Agencies Education Commission of the States 700 Broadway, Suite 1200 Denver, CO 80203-3460 303.299.3600 Fax: 303.296.8332 www.ecs.org Qualifications for Chief State School
TeesRep - Teesside's Research Repository Unfitness to plead and the vulnerable defendant: An examination of the law commission's proposals for a new capacity test Item type Authors Citation DOI Publisher
STATE PRESCRIPTION MONITORING STATUTES AND REGULATIONS LIST Research Current through June 2014. This project was supported by Grant No. G1399ONDCP03A, awarded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
University of Miami Law School Institutional Repository University of Miami Law Review 7-1-1967 Immunity Agreement -- A Bar to Prosecution David Hecht Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr
[ 143 ] INSANITY AND CRIME. BY SIR THOMAS F. MOLONY, BART. [Read Friday, February 15th, 1924.] In July, 1922 Lord Birkenhead, the then Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, appointed a committee of distinguished
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided March 6, 2017 S16A1842. GREEN v. THE STATE. GRANT, Justice. Appellant Willie Moses Green was indicted and tried for malice murder and related crimes in connection
Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 10 Issue 4 1959 Criminal Insanity--A Study of Legal Inertia Robert A. Goodman Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part
No. 14-171 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- KENNETH TROTTER,
William & Mary Law Review Volume 1 Issue 1 Article 12 Mandamus in Election Action Thomas H. Focht Repository Citation Thomas H. Focht, Mandamus in Election Action, 1 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 107 (1957), http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol1/iss1/12
1048 McGILL LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 26 A Defence to CrIminal Responsibility for Performing Surgical Operations: Section 45 of the Criminal Code* A number of writers commenting on the legality of surgical operations
9 N.M. L. Rev. 2 Summer 1979 State v. Jackson: A Solution to the Felony-Murder Rule Dilemma Lee Matotan Recommended Citation Lee Matotan, State v. Jackson: A Solution to the Felony-Murder Rule Dilemma,
University of Mississippi From the SelectedWorks of Michael Shoptaw 2015 M'Naghten Is a Fundamental Right: Why Abolishing the Traditional Insanity Defense Violates Due Process Michael Shoptaw, University
Cite as: U. S. (1998) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 96 1769 OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, ET AL., PETI- TIONERS v. EUGENE WOODARD ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR
Louisiana Law Review Volume 20 Number 4 June 1960 Criminal Law - The Felony Manslaughter Doctrine in Louisiana Robert Butler III Repository Citation Robert Butler III, Criminal Law - The Felony Manslaughter
DePaul Law Review Volume 5 Issue 2 Spring-Summer 1956 Article 9 Criminal Law - Application of Felony Murder Rule Sustained Where Robbery Victim Killed Defendant's Accomplice DePaul College of Law Follow
William and Mary Review of Virginia Law Volume 2 Issue 2 Article 13 Criminal Procedure - Proof of Corpus Delicti by Circumstantial Evidence W. Charles Poland Repository Citation W. Charles Poland, Criminal
University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln College of Law, Faculty Publications Law, College of 2015 Survey of State Civil Shoplifting Statutes Ryan Sullivan University
NOVA SCOTIA COURT OF APPEAL Citation: R. v. Spencer, 2018 NSCA 3 Date: 20180109 Docket: CAC 470957 Registry: Halifax Between: Rita Mary Spencer v. Her Majesty the Queen Applicant Respondent Judge: Motion
Question 1 Mel suffers from a mental disorder that gives rise to a subconscious desire to commit homicide. Under the influence of the mental disorder, Mel formulated a plan to kill Herb by breaking into
The Catholic Lawyer Volume 4 Number 4 Volume 4, Autumn 1958, Issue 4 Article 3 September 2016 Proposed Revisions of the M'Naghten Rule Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl