Criminal Law

Front 1

La. R.S. 14:14 Insanity

Back 1

If the circumstances indicate that because of a mental disease or mental defect the offender was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong with reference to the conduct in question, the offender shall be exempt from criminal responsibility

Front 2

To succeed with an insanity defense, the defendant must prove:

Back 2

1. Presence of mental disease or defect during the commission of the crime
2. Incapable of distinguishing right and wrong

Front 3

Mental disease or defect prevented defendant from:

Back 3

Forming requisite mens rea of crime; could not tell right from wrong AT TIME crime was committed

Front 4

Since law based on assumption that everyone is sane, who must prove mental disease or mental defect

Back 4

The defendant must prove that mental disease or mental defect caused defendant to lack mens rea

Front 5

How to test whether defense has merit for defense of insanity

Back 5

1. Does defendant have mental disease or defect?
2. Did this mental disease or defect prevent the defendant from distinguishing right and wrong at time of crime?
If yes to both questions, defense has merit
If not to either question then defense has no merit

Front 6

Evidence of Mental Disease

Back 6

Because of mental disease, something contracted or acquired, the defendant could not tell right from wrong

Front 7

Evidence of Mental Defect

Back 7

Because of mental defect, something that is pathological or you are born with - mental retardation, the defendant could not tell right from wrong

Front 8

What do all insanity test require?

Back 8

That the defendant had been suffering from a "mental disease or defect" at time of the offense

Front 9

Who bears the burden of proof for the defense of insanity?

Back 9

The defendant because law assumes everyone is sane. If insane, must prove it.

Front 10

If defendant proves mental disease what must state prove?

Back 10

State must prove you knew right from wrong.

Front 11

What is the outcome of an insanity acquittal?

Back 11

The defendant will be committed for evaluation and a hearing held. Duration of any commitment is typically indefinite.

Front 12

Who can discharge a defendant from being institutionalized after insanity acquittal?

Back 12

Discharge can come by court order on application of the custodial authorities or the defendant, but defendant who seeks discharge must prove grounds for release.

Front 13

Threshold Questions/2 prong Test for determining the insanity of a defendant

Back 13

1. Does the Defendant have a mental disease or defect?
2. Did the mental disease or defect preclude/prevent the defendant from distinguishing between right and wrong at the time the crime was committed?

Front 14

What did court determine in State v. Scott after defendant pled insanity defense?

Back 14

Intoxication is not a mental defect or disease. Cannot claim that voluntary intoxication is insanity. Must not possess the S.I.

Front 15

La. R.S. 14:15 Intoxication: The fact of an intoxicated or drugged condition of the offender at the time of the commission of the crime is immaterial, except where?

Back 15

1. Where the production of the intoxicated or drugged condition had been involuntary, and the circumstances indicate this condition is the direct cause of hte commission of the crime, the offender is exempt from criminal responsibility.
2. Where the circumstances indicate that an intoxicated or drugged condition had precluded the presence of a specific criminal intent or of special knowledge required in a particular crime, this fact constitutes a defense to a prosecution of that crime.

Front 16

To be successful with a defense of intoxication who bears the burden of proof and what must be proved?

Back 16

The defendant bears the burden of proof. Defendant must prove:
1. The intoxication was involuntary
2. The intoxication precluded/prevented the formation of specific criminal intent.

Front 17

In the defense of intoxication, what can negate criminal responsibility?

Back 17

Only involuntary intoxication can negate criminal responsibility.

Front 18

If the intoxication is voluntary, when can the defense of intoxication negate specific intent?

Back 18

If intoxication is voluntary, then the defense of intoxication can negate specific intent only if the intoxication arose before the intent to act. Voluntary intoxication only lowers specific intent to manslaughter; it does not negate criminal responsibility.

Front 19

Involuntary Intoxication

Back 19

Absolute defense where offender is unaware of consumption of intoxicating substance. D must show that he did not know about the mind altering substance.

Front 20

Forced Intoxication

Back 20

One is forced by another to consume substance with possible threat of harm.

Front 21

Type of Intoxication
Intoxication by Mistake

Back 21

A gives B a tablet of cocaine purporting it to be Tylenol

Front 22

Type of Intoxication
Pathological Intoxication

Back 22

When defendant claims did not know his body constitution and that his body could not handle alcohol. Human body is overly sensitive

Front 23

Type of Intoxication
Prescribed Drugs

Back 23

Defendant must not be aware that the drug can cause intoxication; defendant must prove that he was unaware of potential intoxication of drug.

Front 24

What can cause intoxication?

Back 24

All mind altering substances, drugs and alcohol.

Front 25

Voluntary Intoxication

Back 25

Anytime defendant knowingly and willingly consumes alcohol or any other mind altering substance.

Front 26

When is Voluntary Intoxication not a defense?

Back 26

Voluntary Intoxication is not a defense for general intent crimes: rape, battery, assault

Front 27

When is Voluntary Intoxication a defense?

Back 27

For specific intent crimes. If defendant can show that because of intoxicant he or she could not form the requisite mental element required for crime: murder and theft

Front 28

Test to determine whether defendant was voluntarily intoxicated.

Back 28

1. Did defendant voluntarily consume intoxicant? If no then defense complete. If yes then ask
2. What type of intent is required for crime?
If general intent crime, voluntary intoxication is not a defense so stop.
If specific intent crime, voluntary intoxication is a defense - move to question three
3. Could defendant form the requisite mental element required for this crime? If yes - defense has no merit
If no, defense has merit

Front 29

Is the defense complete if the defendant voluntarily consumed intoxicant?

Back 29

No. Defense is only complete if defendant did not voluntarily consume intoxicant. If is voluntary, then determine the intent.

Front 30

Is voluntary intoxication a defense for a crime of general intent or specific intent?

Back 30

Voluntary intoxication is a defense for a crime of specific intent not general intent.

Front 31

What is voluntary intoxication?

Back 31

Is the voluntary introduction of artificial substances into the body, which the defendant knows or should know are likely to have intoxicating effect.