What Limitations May a State Impose on the Insanity and Mental Illness Defenses?
Clark v. Arizona Docket No. 05-5966 From: The Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division One Case at a Glance At his trial for intentionally or knowingly killing an on-duty police officer, a mentally ill defendant was prevented from arguing that his illness disproved the mental requirement for the crime, because Arizona does not allow such arguments of “diminished capacity.” The defendant also failed to prove his affirmative defense of insanity, which Arizona defines solely in terms of knowing right from wrong. The state appellate courts rejected the defendant’s contentions that both of these rules violate the Due Process Clause. • Previewed by Robert Batey, a professor at Stetson University College of Law in St. Petersburg, Florida.
