Arizona’s insanity defense is one of the toughest to prove in the United States. The harshness of the defense provoked legal challenges in past years. Opponents claimed it failed to meet basic standards of fairness.
The obstacles associated with the defense were challenged in 2006 in the case of Clark v. Arizona. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
Eric Clark shot a police officer dead during a traffic stop. Clark was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. He believed aliens took over his town, according to expert witnesses.
Clark wanted to use this evidence to prove that he was insane. His attorneys claimed he could not form the criminal intent that prosecutors required to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial judge ruled Clark could not use the expert testimony. He said the law did not permit the defendant to show he could not form the necessary criminal intent. The court found Clark failed to prove the insanity defense known as the Guilty Except Insane (GEI) defense in Arizona. Clark was convicted to 25 years to life in prison.
The U.S. Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant has a Fourteenth Amendment due process right, aside from his insanity plea, to present expert evidence to counter to prosecution’s evidence of Clark’s criminal intent.
The New York Times pointed out the nation’s highest court never ruled that the Constitution requires a state to permit an explicit insanity defense. The insanity defense was abolished by four states – Utah, Kansas, Idaho, and Montana.
However, these states still permitted a defendant to present evidence of his or her diminished mental capacity by using experts to challenge evidence of criminal intent.
Arizona bars the use of this evidence. Defendants who rely on insanity defenses can request a Guilty Except Insane verdict. However, the defendant must demonstrate insanity under a statutory rule that’s narrower than that of most states.
The insanity defense dates back to England in the 16th Century. It was codified in the 19th century with the development of the M’Naghten Rule.
The court in the case decided a “disease of the mind” caused the accused to fail to realize the difference between right and wrong. There are other legal tests such as Durham Rule that found a defendant who is “not guilty by reason of insanity” cannot be convicted of crimes committed as a result of certain mental conditions because willful intent is required. The rule is only used in New Hampshire.
It is difficult but not impossible to bring the Guilty Except Insane defense in Arizona. You should hire a Phoenix-area attorney who is experienced in these cases. Please call us today at (602) 340-1999.
