Английская Википедия:Hendershott v. People

Материал из Онлайн справочника
Версия от 14:52, 20 марта 2024; EducationBot (обсуждение | вклад) (Новая страница: «{{Английская Википедия/Панель перехода}} {{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}} {{Multiple issues| {{orphan|date=October 2016}} {{one source|date=April 2022}} }} {{Infobox court case |name = Hendershott v. People |court = Supreme Court of Colorado |image = |imagesize = |imagelink = |imagealt = |caption = |full name = Lee Roy Hende...»)
(разн.) ← Предыдущая версия | Текущая версия (разн.) | Следующая версия → (разн.)
Перейти к навигацииПерейти к поиску

Шаблон:Use mdy dates Шаблон:Multiple issues

Шаблон:Infobox court case Hendershott v. People, Supreme Court of Colorado, 653 P.2d. 385 (1982), is a criminal case that a defendant who was not excused by being legally insane, might still be exculpated because he lacked a guilty mind (mens rea) due to a mental disease.[1]Шаблон:Rp

In Colorado, Lee Roy Hendershott accused a woman he was dating of being with another man, then struck, kicked, and choked her. He was charged with third degree assault in state court.[1]Шаблон:Rp In Colorado, third degree assault was a general intent crime (involving the act being knowingly or recklessly done), not a specific intent crime (in which the crime is intentionally done).[1]Шаблон:Rp Hendershott's defense attorney attempted to introduce evidence that Hendershott suffered from a mental disorder causing impulse control to counter that defendant had a guilty mind (mens rea).[1]Шаблон:Rp The evidence was excluded because of a statute that evidence of mental impairment short of legal insanity may be offered as bearing on capacity to form a specific intent.[1]Шаблон:Rp Defendant was convicted and appealed.[1]Шаблон:Rp

The state Supreme Court reversed and remanded.[1]Шаблон:Rp It reasoned that constitutional due process requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant has a guilty mind (mens rea), and to prove every fact needed to constitute the crime, citing Sandstrom v. Montana and Patterson v. New York.[1]Шаблон:Rp One element is mens rea. Disallowing evidence to rebut a prosecution showing that defendant had the requisite mens rea was an unconstitutional denial of due process.[1]Шаблон:Rp The court distinguished between legislation precluding an affirmative defense, and precluding a rebuttal to showing the element of mens rea.[1]Шаблон:Rp

References

Шаблон:Reflist

External links

Шаблон:Caselaw source