State v. Herrera

Utah, Appellee, STATE of Plaintiff and HERRERA,

Tomas R. Defendant Appellant. Utah, Appellee,

STATE of Plaintiff and SWEEZEY,

Mikell Defendant Appellant.

Nos. 920265.

Supreme Court of Utah.

April Dam, Gen., Atty.

R. Paul Van Christine Soltis, Gen., Atty. City, Lake Asst. Salt plaintiff. Watt, Moffat, P.

Joan C. Mark R. Richard Mauro, City, for Herrera. Salt Lake Watt, Remal, Lake Lisa J. Joan C. Salt City, Sweezey.

HOWE, I Sweezey charged Justice: home so shot him.” attempted murder in violation Utah interlocutory appeal This is an two Code Ann. 76-5-203. in two cases which we have orders entered appellate purposes. consolidated for Defen- Sweezey also filed several motions that are Sweezey dants Tomas R. Herrera and Mikell essentially to those filed Herr- identical constitutionality era, challenge attacking both Utah’s Utah’s defense stat- as codified Utah motions, defense under Code utes. The trial court denied these §Ann. and other related sections. granted Sweezey’s 76-2-805 we interlocutory ap-

peal.

FACTS STANDING ISSUES interlocutory appeal, Since this is an there only adjudication has limited been of the Initially, question there is a whether specific in either facts ease. The State con- Sweezey, early either Herrera this following facts far cedes so as the stage, standing has demonstrated that he constitutionality limited issue of is concerned. However, challenge to the statutes. it is an adequate showing standing expert if an v.

State Herrera testimony provides or an asserting affidavit insanity” “viable is Defendant shot issue involved in Herrera and killed his ex- Rhoades, the case. v. Idaho girlfriend, State Claudia Martinez. He admitted to 809 P.2d Both police visiting he had Herrera been “some Sweezey presented testimony, such girl” “something snapped, when something standing happened bring we conclude that have to go to him and he decided challenge. Martinez house and shoot He Claudia.” also gun admitted that took his her he home

and shot her twice He head. then ANALYSIS mother, Gonzales, chased her Rosa into a Background I. brother, bedroom where Claudia’s Reuben Martinez, sleeping. was Herrera shot at Hinckley When John was found not police both of them but missed. The arrest- shooting reason of shortly killing ed Herrera after the while he Reagan President Ronald and Press Secre possession gun. still had He had not tary Brady, public outrage prompted James any drugs. consumed alcohol or He was Congress and some states to reexamine their charged with Claudia’s murder and with the respective insanity defense laws. As a re two, attempted murder the other all in sult, in 1983 Utah abolished the traditional § violation Utah Code Ann. 76-5-203. statutory in favor defense of a new Young, scheme. State v. eventually pleaded Herrera guilty by (Utah 1993); Legislative Survey, Utah insanity. reason of He filed several motions 115,151. L.Rev. Utah Under Utah’s current attacking statutory Utah’s scheme as uncon- scheme: upheld trial stitutional. The court the insani- statutes, ty petitioned defense and Herrera It prosecution is a to a defense interlocutory appeal. defendant, for this statute or ordinance that the illness,

a result of lacked the men- Sweezey State tal required as an element of the charged. offense Mental illness not oth- standing Steve Matthews was outside a erwise a defense. City hotel downtown Salt when Lake 76-2-305(1). Sweezey Sweezey approached. When was Code This Ann. amend- n withinabout feet, gun eight pulled prior he from ment eradicated which allowed backpack present independent and shot defendant affir- Matthews face. words, insanity. The bullet entered Matthews’s left cheek but mative defense In other permitted A security did not kill him. officer the former statute a defendant to Sweezey say, “They my hotel heard she ground wrecked defend on the that he or commit- observed, sense, very justice “In a real that the ted the act but did understand wrong. act The new law limits the confinement of the insane is the innocent; did not simply that the defendant the release of alleged requisite Stacy, mens rea society.” punishment of at 384. Young, (Tenn.1980) J., crime. (Henry, 601 S.W.2d dissenting). example helpful illustrate A common prior between the difference policy balancing public This delicate B, thinking he If A kills new law. accomplished legislature in the than in better merely squeezing grapefruit, A does not Supreme Court the courts. United States requisite rea for murder and have the mens Black, dealing with the nebulous con Justice acquitted prior under both would disease, compulsion cepts of and mental stat LaFave, Wayne R. the new law. See Sub- ed, range problems created would “The (1987) 306, (citing Law 315 stantive Criminal beyond capacity to totally our settle seem (1985)) cmt., Penal 4.01 166 Model Code all, wisely, and even the much less settle However, B, if A kills [hereinafter LaFave]. attempt terms and thus to to define these thinking enemy an that B is soldier impose rigidity constitutional and doctrinal self-defense, killing justified then A as area our under seems absurd an where requisite has the mens rea for murder and standing today incomplete.” even so Pow under the new law but not could be convicted 514, 2145, Texas, 546, ell v. 392 88 S.Ct. U.S. knowingly prior he under the (1968) (Black, 2161, J., con 20 L.Ed.2d 1254 intentionally took another’s life. Under very curring). it We made clear Bastian provision, it does matter amended (Utah 1988), 953, King, P.2d 956 v. 661 A was understood that the act whether power responsibility “[i]t Roth, wrong. Tighten R. But Do See Loren Legislature promote to enact laws to (June 1984) 8, Not Discard 2947-48 JAMA health, safety, general public morals and wel (American Psychiatric analyzing Association society ... and will not fare this Court defense); approach rea mens Leg judgment substitute our for that Abolition, Riley, Wallace D. Not Reform respect islature with to what best serves 1984) (American (June 8, 2949 Bar JAMA omitted.) (Citation public interest.” This analyzing approach rea Association mens judicial applies policy of restraint all sound defense). away law new does determining culpability when more insanity de- with the traditional affirmative “ mentally ill. ‘It is not the function killing perceived to fense that prac this Court to evaluate wisdom justifiable and therefore done with innocent ” necessity legislative tical enactments.’ will version intent. We refer the amended Gym (quoting v. Salt Lake Id. Redwood M. as the mens rea See Harlow model. (Utah Comm’n, 1138, County P.2d 1141 Huekabee, 624 Avoiding Insanity Defense 1981)); Route, see Sullivan v. Scoular Grain Co. Straight Rea 15 Jacket: Mens 1993) (“We (Utah Utah, 877, P.2d 883 853 Pepp.L.Rev. 25 Hucka- [hereinafter statutory ‘to assess the wisdom of free bee]. ” (quoting v. scheme.’ West Jordan Morri Legislative Responsibility II. (Utah 1982))). son, 656 P.2d Determining accountability for criminal legisla if a Even court finds certain acts is serious and difficult task. Govern- unwise, tion unreasonable or that alone does society’s in or-

ment must balance interests authority it has to invalidate it. mean der, protection, punishment, and deterrence Regents Ewing, v. Mich. 474 U.S. Univ. particularly responsibility with arduous 214, 226, 507, 514, 88 L.Ed.2d 523 caring the insane and defi- defense, first formulating must rise level cient. In violating it government carry the constitution before can must out the demands instance, our role is to at the time stricken. same assure evaluation, unjustly make such a constitutional not to without minds are not supreme critique legislation. generally As one court condemned. doubt, beyond emphasize We the basic rule of con a reasonable the traditional must longer struction these statutes be con affirmative defense is no strued, possible, absence, if in compliance they argue, available. Its offends with both federal and state constitutions. concept liberty” the basic of “ordered pro Miller, 277, 282-83, Nelson v. Utah 2d by tected the Due Process Clause. See Pal “ ‘In pre order to Connecticut, 319, 325-26, ko v. 302 U.S. independence integrity serve the and the (1937), S.Ct. 82 L.Ed. 288 aban government, branches of it is of the three Lane, Teague doned U.S. 311- judicial importance utmost that the exercise 1060, 1075-77, 103 L.Ed.2d legislative and not restraint intrude into the (1989). Basically, defendants see Utah’s ” Id., prerogative.’ (quoting at 472 480 P.2d mens rea model as unconstitutional because Ctrs., Inc., Drug Skaggs Trade Comm’n it would if allow them be convicted even 431, 437, (1968)). Utah 2d 446 P.2d consciously did not wrongful know the There no doubt that strike we cannot down ness of their As a actions. means to reach any legislation expressly unless it violates the conclusion, urge their desired defendants us prohibited clearly constitution or to establish a of M’Naghten combination Id.; plain “some mandate thereof.” Parkin impulse test and the irresistible rule Watson, son v. 4 Utah 2d requirement minimum proc federal due 400, (1955); Comm’n, see Trade 446 ess.1 (stressing P.2d at 963 courts are called Utah, Only Idaho, and limit Montana have upon to state what is and not the law what insanity negating ed the to defense the mens be; it think should courts are not the Supreme rea of a crime.2 The of Courts people of conscience the and are not to “ex already Idaho and upheld Montana have the press personal philosophy desires insanity defense statutes states personnel”). its constitutional under the federal constitution. 632, Searcy, 914 118 Idaho 798 P.2d III. Federal Due Concerns Process (1990); Korell, State v. Mont. argue Defendants mens rea (1984); Byers, P.2d 992 also see State v. process model violates federal due because a (1993); Mont. 861 P.2d 860 State v. Co “rely insanity cannot defendant as a basis wan, (1993), 260 Mont. 861 P.2d 884 cert. nonresponsibility for the crime unless he — denied, —, U.S. S.Ct. insanity from a form suffers serves (1994). Although L.Ed.2d 48 the statutes negate to the mens element rea of the identical, they these three are not states Admittedly, crime.” this amended statute very 18-207; similar. See Idaho Code insanity very limits the defense to narrow 46-14-102, §§ to Montana Code Ann. -201 extremely mentally ill class of defendants. -203, -212 to -213. they already maintain Defendants that since opportunity negate Searcy, Supreme In re- have the to statutori the Idaho Court ly required insanity mens rea of a element crime and viewed the state’s defense under every prove process since the State must element state due both and federal clauses. i.e., M'Naghten predomi- wrongful- 1. The test has become that the understood the defendant insanity throughout nant test the United States. ness of his conduct. exist, Although basically terms, variations of it is the test impulse In test broad the irresistible defined follows: requires guilty by a verdict of reason if it is found the defendant had ground establish a of insan- [T]o defense on the kept controlling mental disease which him from that, ity, clearly proved must be at it the time his conduct. Id. at 320. act, committing party of the of the accused reason, laboring was defect of such a Supreme 2. The Alaska Court concluded mind, disease from of the as not to know the statutoiy incorporated Alaska’s quality doing, he nature of the act was only prong M'Naghten the first test. State did know it that not know if he he did what he Patterson, (Alaska 1987). doing 740 P.2d wrong. was However, LaFave, its analysis, the court refused to comment on purposes at 311. For this acknowledge validity at n. rea constitutional that time. Id. at we that the mens model abol- test, M’Naghten prong ishes the second 18. defense, that most fact Searcy that the law the argued Idaho Defendant jurisdictions right unconstitutionally “[k]nowledge him denied used pleading him at prevented wrong” Id. 1008. law because test. at concluded, insanity as The court a defense. argue a state means Defendants Constitu- “Neither the federal nor to test over another but is free choose one tion!;] setting any language forth contains reject permitted under constitution Searcy, at right.” such apply a mens all tests and traditional Searcy the actual effect of clarified accept a narrow model. cannot such rea We negating limiting insanity defense to reading very thrust of the Leland. explained that rea. The court mens holding is the law does not Court’s Utah, states, Idaho, any particular approach to the insan- Montana demand [t]hree legislatively reject ity chosen We read Leland allow defense. separate specific ap- defense to experimentation condition as various states some with charge. The these proaches dealing a criminal statutes criminal however, (not- states, permit expressly ev Byers, three 861 P.2d at 866 defendant. See disability to be Supreme idence mental illness ing Court has that United States trial, support not in presented at that Due Process Clause does determined defense, independent insanity rather in but require any particular use permit defense). the accused to rebut the order prove that the state’s evidence offered Powell, In U.S. requisite intent defendant had Supreme up- States Court United or mens rea.... law which made it unlawful to be held state agree Id. at 917. We with this characteriza- opinion, place. in a public drunk the lead mens rea model. tion of current Utah complexities set Justice Marshall forth recognize a Although Utah law not does accountability dealing personal in the did defense that defendants not understand law: conduct, wrongfulness of their as would centuries-long cast aside the We cannot insanity allowed under an affirmative de- interlocking evolution of the collection of fense, it to still allows them introduce rebut- overlapping concepts the com- which they requisite tal lacked the evidence to the moral mon has utilized assess to mental illness. mens rea due their accountability of individual for his anti- an Supreme Court has The United States reus, The actus social deeds. doctrines of squarely pro- never addressed whether rea, mistake, justification, insanity, mens insanity an de- cess demands affirmative historically provided have and duress 918; fense, id. has that neither Court adjustment constantly shifting tools for a in- articulated a constitutional definition of evolving aims of tension between sanity. Cunningham, F.Supp. v. 766 Abbott religious, changing the criminal law and (D.N.H.1991). However, 1218, 1223 what lit- moral, philosophical, and medical views of Supreme the United Court has tle States process adjust- the nature of man. This suggests said there no federal due always thought to ment has been process right independent an to defense province of the States. insanity. Searcy, In Le- 798 at 918. 535-36, opinion Id. at 88 at 2156. S.Ct. Oregon, 343 land U.S. to also echoed the reluctance found Leland (1952), 96 L.Ed. 1302 the United States Su- right any partic- a establish constitutional Oregon preme upheld Court statute insanity ular defense:

placed proving beyond burden formulating a rule But constitutional would reasonable doubt on defendant. reduce, eliminate, any exper- if fruitful adopt specific Court declined imentation, developing pro- requirement pro- as a under federal due and freeze test cess, psychia- concluding holding dialogue such a would be ductive between law uncertainty try rigid into mold. It is given in the constitutional unwarranted community, history simply yet time to into the psychiatric the erratic write concepts Constitution formulas cast in terms whose deal with the elusive of mental ill- relevance, meaning, yet guilt. alone is not surprisingly, let ness and “Not there has lawyers. disparity clear to doctors or to resulted a position either wide tak- on legislatures en this issue both 586-37, agree Id. at 88 S.Ct. at 2156. We courts the various states.” Id. with these rationales. are reluctant We test, including a embrace one combina- although For example, the states have tak- M’Naghten tion of and the irresistible im- approaches insanity, en two basic several test, pulse as the constitutional minimum re- majori- variations of rules A different exist. quirement. ty of states follow some form of Supreme States Court United struck test; M’Naghten adopted others have varia- down a state statute allowed continued tions of the Model Penal Code definition. one confinement of who exhibited antisocial Six states have added the im- “irresistible activity longer but was found ill. test, pulse” and three use states now Louisiana, Foucha v. 504 U.S. S.Ct. Kathryn Fritz, Proposed mens rea model. J. On an L.Ed.2d uncon Quali- Insanity Federal Should Defense: point, Kennedy acknowledged, tested Justice ty Mercy Safety?, Sake Suffer recognize “States are free and define the (1984); Am.Crim.L.Rev. see La- fit.” Id. at see Fave, approach at 310. Never has one been J., (Kennedy, dissenting). S.Ct. at 1794 constitutionally required universally concurring In opinion, Justice O’Connor Rather, jurisdictions deemed the best. emphasized holding placed that the Court’s developed systems individualized that best no new restriction the “States’ freedom to public policies. serve their own determine whether and to what extent men tal illness should excuse criminal behavior. Although minority has adopted po- The Court sition, does indicate that States must approach its has been endorsed make the defense available.” Id. at credible branches scientific medi- 88-89, (O’Connor, J., S.Ct. con cal fields. the American Medical Oklahoma, curring); see Ake 470 U.S. approved report by Association its Board of 91, 105 L.Ed.2d recommending Trustees adoption of the (“It J., (Rehnquist, dissenting) highly mens rea Report, model. Committee Insani- doubtful requires that due a State to ty in Criminal Trials Limita- Defense insanity make to a available defense crimi Psychiatric Testimony, tion JAMA defendant.”). nal (June 8,1984) (making argument an adamant support position) in of this AMA [hereinafter argument make a Defendants historical Report]. “Thus, [the model] mens rea now independent insanity that an affirmative de- policy of the American Medical Associa- grounded system fense is so in legal our tion, Idaho, concept adopted as well as its abolishment offends our fundamental Montana, Huckabee, and Utah.” at 26-27. principles justice of law and and therefore process.3 violates Searcy due addressed a high also Montana court has de argument recognized

similar that “[t]he right termined that is no insanity there constitutional has long defense had varied independent insanity to have an history defense. during development its the com- Korell, There, However, mon 690 P.2d 996. the court law.” 798 P.2d at 916-17. it responded recognized history argument also to the historical as fol this has not been centuries, reject appellant’s uniform lows: ‘We and that over the the im- contention plications law, from the insanity period of a criminal earliest of the common defendant’s changed. Many insanity have recognized Id. at 917. has different been as a defense. surfaced, discarded, theories recognize have been and What we is that one lacks the who humanity attempted requisite resurfaced as of mind not be through 3. Defendants' include an briefs extensive review the establishment of the United States Constitution, insanity argument begins through defense. Their continues American century proceeds present. with sixth B.C. case law Hebrew until the extraordinary compassion insight Id. Utah’s strated punished.” at 999.4 convicted society. dealing class of Salt this with this provides rea model minimum stan- mens City had the first institution for the agree Lake protection to defendants. We dard of ill in western United States. common law and our with Korell that McKell, History R. the Utah State Charles liberty principles of ordered are not basic (1948) (unpublished Hospital, Provo Master’s by the mens rea model. See also offended Utah). thesis, University of law Territorial Cowan, (holding Due 861 P.2d at 888 that the harshly it a treat or made misdemeanor require does not the use of Process Clause neglect any person. Utah Laws insanity any particular test allocation XI, § Throughout most of its histo ch. 193. proof). burden most ry, Utah had one liberal statuto rely upon dated state Defendants three ry approaches governing culpability of respective down their decisions which struck Kirkham, those with mental illness. State as unconstitutional because state statutes 2d Utah they complete- defense abolished unique history, of this defendants Because ly. Lange, 168 La. 123 So. 639 State process protection assert that the state State, (1929); Sinclair v. 161 Miss. counterpart, of its exceeds that federal (1931); Strasburg, 60 So. 581 State v. Wash. con as far as the defense is least 106, 110 P. 1020 These cases are therefore, argue, Defendants cerned. distinguishable because involved “stat- process prohibits clause abol- the state due precluded testimony of utes which trial affirmative ishment the traditional condition, including testimony trial disagree. defense. We which would have rebutted the state’s evi- upon history Defendants’ reliance dence of state mind.” Se- the defendant’s thing misplaced. It is one to demonstrate arcy, 798 P.2d at 919 n. Utah’s does unique background in deal- that Utah has Rather, not do this. it allows defendants to illness; ing quite it is another to with mental specifi- present evidence of mental illness to comply that state due must conclude cally negate required state of mind. background any legislation with this and that public Determining whether a law is wise practices vio- that abandons Utah’s historical policy determining whether it is constitu- legislature al- lates constitution. separate appro- It is tional two matters. law; penal lowed reform the latter, priate this court to decide past. explains into the As the locked discussion, light foregoing we brief, “[Defendant [does not] in its conclude that the de- current right simply vested because it process. fense does not violate federal due previously Pa- available.” See State v. (Utah 1989) (stat- dilla, Due Process IV. State Concerns relying ing argument similar on out- next contend frivolous). Defendants that Utah’s statu- dated criminal law was tory process due scheme violates event, history any In Utah’s has been Const, I, § 7 state constitution. Utah art. consistency of in the of the model area insan- (“No life, deprived liberty shall be ity employed defense. The state has differ- law.”). process or property, without due approaches ent at different times over the past provide history years. one hundred The irresistible

Defendants detailed test, initially pioneer impulse example, reject- how Utah has been a in the treat for ed, mentally Mewhinney, ill. 43 ment and From State v. Utah 1983, 632, (1913), days recognized, its territorial Utah has demon P. 638 was later fact, insanity deeply upon special 4. not as it bore mens rea. Creation of the history might imag- departure anchored in as some defense was a from the traditional [fjnsanity recog- ... to be ine. did come of the in moral basis criminal law—embodied independent ground exculpa- nized an for prevailed concept of mens rea—that had time, century. 19th to that tion until the insanity Prior before. centuries to the issue of was considered relevant Report, at AMA guilt, or moral blameworthiness insofar as Green, mind at time v. 78 Utah state State (1931), rejected again. then and was crime. (Utah Sessions, v. State Young, (quoting Legis- P.2d at Utah 1982). sampled Utah has several variations Survey 1983, lative 1984 Utah L.Rev. — years, demonstrating the somewhat over 265); §§ 156 n. see Utah Code Ann. 77-16a- relationship nature of the between erratic If a guilty -104. defendant is found not insanity. culpability and criminal by insanity, acquitted reason he is of all rely upon past However, culpability. subject Defendants also decisions he is support court their this state due to civil If a confinement. defendant is found See, argument. P. at e.g., Mewhinney, ill, guilty mentally trial and court first (implementing requiring test de hearing conducts a to “determine the defen- recognize wrongfulness con fendant § present dant’s mental state.” 77-16a- Brown, duct); 46, 102 104(1). 36 Utah P. 641 State If the court “finds clear and (1909) that an (recognizing individual could convincing evidence that the defendant necessary mens rea but not ill,” currently mentally may it sentence the criminally culpable insanity). due to These just guilty defendant other defendant distinguishable. decid cases are This court (1) (2) hospital, commit him to the state prior legislature them when the ed probation, order him to order limited the defense. These former custody Department of Corrections. interpreted either statu decisions different 77-16a-104(3). § If a defendant commit- tory standard that existed at that time or hospital ted to for confinement and judicial simply expressed preference for treatment, eighteen he remains there for one test over another. None of the eases months or until he reaches “maximum bene- constitution, grounded the Utah 77-16a-202(l)(b). fit.” binding today light are not of section 76- guilty mentally ill verdict buffers Korell, 690 2-305. See P.2d at 999-1000. consequences some of the harsher of elimi- policy legislature

The Utah has made a nating independent defense. It decision to limit the traditional de- judge trial affords the discretion determin- decision, policy fense. hold that We ing guilty mentally one found ill whether defendants, though limiting for vio- does not should medical receive attention rather than process rights. late their state due incarceration. This traditional new verdict option acknowledges that can a defendant Although legislature has limited the ill, guilty mentally both and it aids the insanity defense, provided guilty has jury resolving the dilemma of whether to mentally option. ill verdict as an “A insanity. acquit provides The verdict judgment guilty mentally ill does ground “guilty” middle between and “not defendant; serve to exonerate excuse the guilty by insanity.” It reason allows for rather, found the offender and mental- disposition mentally ill “special offenders ill ly is held accountable for his criminal therapeutic setting to a custodial conduct, illness, yet because of his mental purpose treating the mental illness.” specialized need treatment.” Legislative Survey 1983, 1984 Utah 1987). (Utah — DePlonty, 749 P.2d 156-57. L.Rev. at “Guilty mentally ill” is a deliberate “guilty argue ill” approach variation of the but Defendants that Utah’s provision adopted years develop- some states. The hundreds of thrown legislative guilty thought committee that ment out the door. Existence of the [Utah] implied mentally ill “guilty mentally the words but ill” and verdict contradicts such as- a causal connection between the mental sertions. We believe that mens rea mod- the con- with implied coupled illness and the crime. That el this inventive verdict is a nection, however, inappropriate constitutionally system dealing under of valid “guilty ever-adapting the Utah statute because men- field. The new law is not a and tally digression ages ignorance ill” to of and fear of on state defendant’s of focuses illness, sentencing, legitimate approach regardless mind at the time but a to of does not shift baffling relation- Section 76-2-305 burden

dealing with sometimes proof. merely defendants to insanity It enables and mens rea. See ship between that rebuts the State’s case (concluding present that evidence Report, mens AMA at end, beginning to against them. From legally surpasses, both and approach rea prov- responsibility insanity prosecution carries morally, all defenses traditional ing every element of the crime apprecia- each and it leads “a more realistic to while beyond im- doubt. relationship reasonable between mental tion of behavior”). and pairment criminal Arbitrary Capricious and

VI. Equal and Protection V Burden of Proof to The next issue address whether convicted, to be For defendants due arbitrary capricious and section 76-2-305 prosecution prove that the process mandates process, due and therefore violative state beyond charged every element of the crimes Const, 7, I, § and art. or federal state Utah Winship, In re 397 U.S. a reasonable doubt. Const, XIV, equal protection, U.S. amend. L.Ed.2d 368 Const, I, § 24. Both the federal Utah art. Swenson, 1136,1138 (1970); State v. P.2d require similarly state that and constitutions 1992). (Utah that Defendants assert be treated alike under situated individuals scheme unconstitution is a the law unless there reasonable basis ally prosecution relieves the this burden treating differently. v. them Greenwood process.5 They contend that violation due Lake, City North Salt 817 P.2d rely on allows them to since section 76-2-305 (Utah 1991); Lewis, P.2d Malan intent, only negate required to (Utah 1984). argue Defendants that crime, they an element essence are illegally model differentiates Utah’s mens rea prove they requisite to forced lacked solely mentally ill on between defendants prosecution proving rather mens rea than content of delusions. insane defen their One true, they possess If it. this would shift may kill delusion that dant severe proof. the burden something killing he is human. may Another kill under delusion that he is theory previously con This been justi actions are attacked and his rejected. Byers, at sidered The first is found not fied self-defense. 864-65, explained the court that the mens rea under the mens reason present evi model enables a defendant model, rea while the second be convict supporting his claim but does dence defendants, According equally ed. each beyond require prove the defendant ill, mentally they differently are but treated negates reasonable doubt that disease “clinically indistinguishable because some de requisite intent. a burden ‘shifts’ it “When system” lusional causes them to differ another, prose goes party from one ent hallucinations. prosecution But cution to defendant. find that there is a reasonable here was relieved its burden. The We that the jury was not instructed that basis this difference and mens [the defendant] 865; arbitrary capricious.6 any kind Id. at rea model is not had of burden all.” Beam, legislature line 109 Idaho 710 P.2d has drawn a between comprehend those who do not Apparently, urge decide on both the American Medical Association 5. Defendants us to this issue anything process grounds. model but due Howev- views mens rea arbi- federal er, trary capricious. unambiguously argument It defendants' state due attests superficial philoso- specific question approach this a consistent entails "restores history phy responsibility, enhancing concerning unique thus statement Utah’s criminal acceptance part credibility reference another defendants' brief. adequate briefing justice system_ emphasiz[es] authority, [It] we lim- consider- Without analysis mercy appropriate proof treatment all of the burden of issue to ations it our Jensen, Report, process. AMA State v. disordered offenders.” federal added). 1991). (Utah (emphasis n. 2 (1) taking a life and who do. If proposes human those a defendant to offer evi- guilty dence that is not group offenders in the first do not know that he as a result of insanity or he they hurting had diminished killing person, are or mental another capacity, prose- he shall file and serve group while in the do those second know. cuting attorney with written notice of his group judgment, The first makes no moral intention to claim the defense at the time group they while the second realizes are arraignment or as soon afterward as actually killing someone and therefore their practicable, but not days fewer than 30 actions come closer to the realm criminali- before the trial. (“[T]he ty. Report, See AMA at 2975 (2) If the court receives notice that a must first discard the notion that defendant intends to claim he is not negates short of that mens rea ab- guilty by reason of or that he had legal respon- solves a defendant moral and capacity, diminished court shall acts.”); sibility Neely, for his see also Department order the of Human Services (1991) 112 N.M. (up- investigate examine the defendant and holding legislative distinction between those his mental orga- condition. The or guilty by found not reason of nization department directed to con- mentally ill guilty those found but and ex- duct testify the examination shall at the plaining rationally that this classification “is request of or party any the court either legitimate related to a interest —it allows proceeding testimony in which the is other- ill mentally capac- those who did not have the trial, Pending wise admissible. unless the ity appropriate to form the criminal intent to court or the executive director directs oth- liability providing avoid criminal while erwise, the defendant shall retained in liability criminal those custody the same or status he was at the intent, they possessed yet the criminal who time the examination was ordered. ill”). are nonetheless (3) The defendant shall make himself reasonably It can be concluded that those fully cooperate available and in the exami- appreciate who understand the fact that department nation other killing “culpable” another are more independent examiners for the defense and carry than those whose delusions them even prosecuting attorney. If the defendant away reality. agree further We with fully fails to himself make available and the trial court’s legal conclusion that “the cooperate, and that failure is established to purposes standard of mental illness for hearing satisfaction the court at a culpability constitutionally is not re- trial, prior to the defendant is barred from quired to all embrace medical definitions of presenting expert testimony relating to his mental illness.” The mens rea model is a defense of mental illness at the trial of legitimate holding means to the end of re- department complete case. The shall sponsible who acted days examination within after necessary intent. court’s prepare pro- order and shall prosecutor vide to the court and defense Against Right VII. Self-Incrimination report concerning counsel a written condition of the defendant. charge Ann. Defendants that Utah Code § (3).7 77—14—4 both violates 77-14-4(1), (2), § federal state Utah Code Ann. & rights against court, constitutional self-incrimina- argued the trial defendants provides part: tion. This statute requirement compels examination them to legislature appeal, psychological Since this case reached sociological profile, op- requirements: has added some related posing party right corresponding have a shall (3) prosecution propos- expert If the or the defense to have its own examine evaluate testimony expert es to introduce of an which is the defendant. interview, contact, upon personal based vation, obser- psychological testing of the defen- require This section the admis- dant, testimony expert involving of an a mental sion of evidence not otherwise admissible. defendant, diagnosis testimony of an 77-14-3(3) Utah Code Ann. & expert that the defendant does or does not fit a 370 the criminal against preserve a fair balance between

give themselves. Both trial evidence prosecutor. reason- and the Such defendant upheld provision, this and defendant courts ing change a state uses undergo does not the exami- Herrera was ordered to were mens rea model. If the defendants nation. by plead- permitted to rebut the state’s case compelled mental This of whether issue any ing insanity then be shielded from to right against self- violate the examinations examination, the bur- psychiatric state’s state much discussion. incrimination received they requisite proving possessed the den of LaFave, at n. 55. In Estelle v. See beyond doubt intent a reasonable Smith, U.S. 101 S.Ct. practically insurmountable. would become (1981), the United Su- L.Ed.2d 359 States LaFave, certainly at “It would See 349-50. the Fifth preme held that violates Court charged strange permit doctrine to one be right against self-incrimination Amendment public put offense to issue his want with undergo compel to a criminal defendant to offense, capacity to of mental commit psychiatric examination when that defendant capacity plea in order make his of want of to attempted nor to introduce neither initiated prevent inquiry his men- invulnerable all into any psychiatric Id. at evidence. Cerar, 60 state condition.” State v. tal 1876; at see States v. Ma- S.Ct. also United 208, 220, Utah P. (10th drid, Cir.1982); F.2d (Utah Bishop, 753 P.2d however, necessary, It is to include 1988). way out of its to The Court went safeguard procedural in relation to this stat point make clear: this Any incriminating that re ute. admissions analogous from a section 77-14-4 examination Nor was the interview to sani- sult rebutting insanity ty limited a defendant’s should be an examination occasioned insanity may plea guilty by defense and not be used to show of not reason of at “engaged in conduct of his a defendant the defendant time offense. When him’).” LaFave, ‘yes, I at charged (e.g. asserts the defense and introduces shot testimony, generally agreed privilege It supporting psychiatric his si- 348. Id.; [meaning unwillingness see Ameri lence his to submit extends to such admissions. may City Crosgrove, deprive to an the State can Fork examination] 1985) (Utah ways (discussing the only means it has of contro- subtle effective may unconstitutionally inter- com verting proof on an issue that he which states evidence). Therefore, jected Accordingly, pel several we direct that into case. that, from Appeals prosecution have held use the information Courts of circumstances, rebut defen such a defendant can be this examination required sanity to submit to a examination dants’ claims but to otherwise prosecution’s psychia- guilt. jury should instruct conducted establish they trist. ed about this and that should restriction any the is not consider such admissions on Estelle, 465, 101 at 1874 451 U.S. at Madrid, 348; LaFave, guilt. at sue of see (citations omitted); also Buchanan v. see agree F.2d 1121-22. also We with Kentucky, 483 U.S. proceed trial intention to court’s announced 2917, 97 (explaining L.Ed.2d 336 of the information in camera review right against pre- self-incrimination does not jury. presented before it is prosecutor, clude in order rebut defense, introducing psychiatric testi- Fifth the United Amendment to defendant); mony expert who examined part that no States Constitution states LaFave, compelled person “shall be against maintain their case to a witness himself.” Utah’s that since Defendants I, counterpart 12 of the negating defense is limited to is article section Constitution, longer provides, “The ac mens afforded rea defense, give compelled dictum in cused shall not be evidence traditional affirmative against argue that the inapplicable. disagree. Estelle We himself.” Defendants pro- privilege against self-incrimination reasoning behind the above statement parties them protection more than its feder- thereto. Where there exists no vides counterpart. They argument this opinion regard- al base more than a difference language history. disparity and on Utah’s ing hypothetical application piece of a disagree. We As we discussed American legislation to a situation which the Fork, privilege 701 P.2d at Utah’s parties time, might, at some future find against does not themselves, self-incrimination exceed question unripe adju- that of the federal constitution. dication. pleaded guilty Since defendants have not Gym, Redwood 1148.

by insanity, reason of we conclude that the privileges against self-incrimination under CONCLUSION state and both federal constitutions do not affirm denying We the trial courts’ orders protect so far as to them from a extend defendants’ motions to “Declare Utah Statu- 77-14-4 section examination. With this con- Unconstitutional,” tory Scheme and we re- clusion, however, clarify that we we are not mand both cases for trial. finding that have waived defendants their rights against by relying self-incrimination ZIMMERMAN, C.J., RUSSON, J„ upon simply We hold defense. concur. a “fair requires state-individual balance” practical privilege. limitation on the See STEWART, Justice, Chief Associate LaFave, (citing at 349-50 United States v. dissenting: Bohle, (7th Cir.1971), 445 F.2d 54 overruled Justice Felix Frankfurter of the United Lawson, by United States v. 653 F.2d Supreme States Court wrote: (7th Cir.1981)). Ever since our ancestral common law VIII. Cruel and Unusual Punishment emerged early out of the darkness its days, postulate barbaric been a argue Defendants next the mens rea taking Western civilization that the of life imposes punishment upon model those who person the hand of an insane is not appreciate wrongfulness not do of their murder. conduct cannot conform their conduct to model, requirements they law. Baldi, United States v. 344 U.S. continue, therefore violates the restrictions 391, 396, 97 L.Ed. against cruel and unusual of both Today’s majority opinion and the statute it the state and federal constitutions. See U.S. represent departure sustains a monumental Const, Const, VIII; I, § amend. art. 9. from, of, rejection one the most funda-

We do not this issue. reach This is principles Anglo-American mental crimi- interlocutory appeal. an Neither defendant nal that has existed centuries. For crime, has been convicted of a let alone sent history and, the first time in this state’s early point, enced.8 At this there has been exceptions, first two for the time the na- adjudication defendant’s either mental history, now tion’s this Court holds that an advisory This court not status. will issue person prohibited an who commits act opinions controversy or examine a that has guilty the criminal law is as a sane yet not may imprisoned, and even executed,

sharpened fully responsible into an if actual imminent clash he were legal rights obligations person. between the sane I submit that the Court fails to ill; (4) argument, presume guilty mentally In their defendants Yet, mentally (5) offense; guilty will be found ill. guilty of a lesser possibilities: there are several other (6) ill; of a lesser offense guilty by If a defendant a defense of not asserts insanity, reason of the court shall instruct the (7) guilty offense due to of a lesser mental jury that it find the defendant: illness, but not a illness that warrants (1) guilty; full exoneration. (2) guilty; (Supp.1993). § Utah Code Ann. 77-16a-102 guilty by insanity; reason suggests that majority opinion also fundamental extent perceive the M’Naghten the issue whether values have principles and constitutional Clearly, constitutionally required. test by its affirmance of Utah Code violated been incorporate any particu- 76-2-305(1). cen- constitution does flouts decision Ann. Nev- defense. lar formulation of respon- personal legal principles turies-old ertheless, recognition insanity as defense sibility that Judeo-Christian evolved recognized principle that has been is a core concepts from an ex- and ethical and moral every system of by civilized law for centuries the of human knowledge of causes panding Historically, the in one form or another. federal precepts of state and Basic behavior. differently, has but law, protection been formulated equal of the defense process due knowledge concerning given the extent of punishment and unusual and the cruel point any given nature principles human constitu- in federal provisions the defense, time, the of the however in essence prohibit legislative imposing such tions action formulated, that a must has been defendant persons mental inhuman treatment on whose rational, capacity to the the mental know nature mor- have deranged are faculties so wrong. it was Whether his act and that impossible. is ally responsible conduct test, beast test been termed the wild the Ann. majority holds that Utah Code The test, test, M’Naghten the Durham the the face § constitutional on its as 76-2-305 is test, test, test, other ALI the federal some equal protection against process always proposition at its the it has had core claims; reasons, it refuses to inexplicable deranged so as that those who are statute, face, vio- on decide whether the its capacity comply with lack the to to pro- punishment the and unusual lates cruel subject punishment to the law are not and federal constitutions visions the state acts performed criminal law for the though place, no trial has taken even course, derangement. it result of the Of is impediment to be no to it finds that fact scope of up Legislature to fashion the protec- deciding equal the due defense, cannot, submit, simply it I the but prop- If first two tion claims. the issues it, There it has done here. is abolish Court, so cruel erly before the is the issue, majority as the therefore no would punishment claim. I submit unusual it, balancing as whether the “delicate to provisions. § 76-2-305 all three violates accomplished in public policy is better respect legislature in the than courts” with the exact nature of the defense. I. NONISSUES Legislature has latitude considerable Legisla- suggests majority adopt limitations to within constitutional ture, insanity, in dealing with is confronted wise, it deems but whatever a delicate bal- dilemma demands cannot, view, my simply it. it in abolish society ancing of interests justice fair- of an individual interest 76-2-305(1) ABOLISHES II. SECTION “ sense, states, very It ‘In a ness. real THE DEFENSE INSANITY punishment confinement of the insane is the change wrought innocent; To understand the radical the release of the insane is ” 76-2-305(1), necessary society.’ (Quoting § law punishment it (Tenn.1980).) Stacy, origins of the defense. outline S.W.2d Beginning century as the crim- Certainly, insane in the twelfth the confinement of the innocent, began inal law to move from a basis of strict punishment of the but culpabili- liability liability based on moral simply that the criminal release of true society.” ty, insanity and came into both self-defense “the state, Utah, English Initially, criminal law. neither in- Every including provides for the sanity nor was a defense persons of insane who are self-defense civil commitment trial; indeed, others, then not as dangerous trials were we such as insane Insanity today. them and self-defense guilty reason of know who have been found were, however, royal pardon. the basis for a insanity. Rea, effect, Sayre, B. Harv. See Francis Mens surmised on basis that a (1932) 974,1004-05 L.Rev. [hereinafter Mens presumed knowledge to have self-defense, Insanity, infancy, and Rea]. wrongful- that one knows the inherent moral other defenses based on the lack of a ness of malum in se crimes. part mind became substantive 76-2-305, With enactment of Bracton, law as after but defenses sometime Legislature right abolished defendant’s early at an date. 1004. Id. at The first presumption by rebut proving insanity. acquittal recorded based (1) (4) Subsections of Utah Code Ann. Kathryn Fritz, Note, Proposed J. § 76-2-305 state: Insanity the Quality Should Defense: Mercy Safety?, Sake (1) Suffer for It is a prosecution defense to a un- Am.Crim.L.Rev. 50 n. [hereinaf- der statute or ordinance de- Note, ]; Insanity ter see also AMA Defense fendant, illness, as a result of mental Report Trustees, Insanity of the Board of required lacked the mental state as an in Criminal Trials Limitation Defense charged. element the offense Mental Psychiatric Testimony, 251 JAMA illness a otherwise defense. (1984) Report], [hereinafter AMA of the insanity Evolution defense and other (4) “Mental illness” means a mental dis- exculpatory defenses into the law common ease or defect. A mental century the twelfth defect be a on was the result of congenital principles assimilation of the condition or canon one the result of helped and Roman which injury transform the or a physical residual effect of a or basis of the law from the blood feud and mental disease. Mental illness does vengeance to principles based on moral personality a or mean character disorder Rea, 975-82; blameworthiness. Mens abnormality or only manifested re- Note, Insanity Defense, concept The peated criminal conduct. “guilty of “mens rea” or or mind” face, language On its in subsection “wrongful intent” became an ele- essential misleading. language stating The ment of a crime. Whether stated as malice defendant, a “defense” “the a result premeditation, aforethought, pretense, malice illness, of mental lacked the mental state mind, guilty intent, wrongful required as an element of the offense concept mind meant than a simple more voli- charged” preserve seems to de- tional or intentional It act. included the fense. It does not. The statute allows a wrongness element required or malice and prove insanity only negates defendant to if it blameworthiness, degree a moral and that requisite mental element of a crime.1 required capacity a for rational conduct. It But that concept means the elements included a of “moral blameworthi- not, proved. ness ... crime must be If predicated on the are there presumption Rea, sanity.” Mens at 994. is no crime. If the elements the crime are proved, precludes proof statute that the years, In Legislature, recent defendant did not act a wrongful with intent simplify an effort require- the mental state he did not capacity because have the to know ment and vagaries eliminate some nature, quality, wrongfulness of his inherent in common law definitions of mens crimes, act. toAs nonintentional those re- rea, aforethought, such as malice see Mens quiring proof of 996-98, negligence, recklessness or provided Rea at that as to intentional example, acts, an insane defendant held the mens rea was simply established strictly showing doing liable for the act he knowing intentional or conduct. cannot, by definition, § Utah Code Ann. 76-2-103. traditional show he acted as a was, mens rea wrongful person element intent reasonable would have acted —the proved conjunction 1. The "mental prove term state” refers state with an act to committing mind a for a must have in act an intentionally, crime. Acts that are done ingly, recklessly, know- crime have been committed under negligently may be criminal. § laws of this state. Utah Code Ann. 76-2-103 § Utah Code Ann. 76-2-101. defines the various mental states that must princi liberty except on deny person life or objective employed test in such standard princi ples “consistent the fundamental cases. ples liberty justice lie at the intent, requiring an insane As to crimes political our institutions.” base of all civil virtually always have person will 316-17, Louisiana, U.S. Hebert required by the law under 76-2- 103, 104, 71 L.Ed. S.Ct. 305(1), though suffers even the defendant protect principles clauses derangement, such as from severe mental concept “implicit in ordered liber psychotic bizarre delusion. extreme and enlightened ty” “a fair and without which (3d Pohlot, F.2d 889 States v. United system justice impossible.” would be Pal denied, Cir.1987), cert. 484 U.S. 319, 325, Connecticut, 58 S.Ct. ko v. 302 U.S. (1988), court 98 L.Ed.2d 660 (1937), overruled on 82 L.Ed. 288 stated: part, Maryland, unrelated Benton however, case, Only will even in the rare 2063, 23 L.Ed.2d U.S. actually legally insane defendant lack purely men- requisite mens rea because of Report tal defect. As the House stated: dismissively majority rejects the “his- ever, rarely, “Mental if renders illness argument indepen- torical that an affirmative understanding person incapable of what he insanity grounded is so our dent not, doing. she is Mental illness does legal system that its abolition offends our example, perception of shoot- for alter justice principles of fundamental shooting ing person of a tree.” majori- process.” The therefore violates due Similarly, a Report at 15 n. 23. House centuries, ty argues insanity over feels man who commits murder because he procedurally and has been dealt with sub- compelled by possesses the demons still truth, stantively ways. In different how- required for murder. mens rea ever, majority simply to come to fails Id. at 900. grips undisputed with core fact centuries, recognized that the law has insani- adopted have two states that ty a human of criminal re- absolves acknowledged statutes similar Utah’s acts, sponsibility just infancy for his as insanity de- statutes abolish course, insanity do. de- self-defense Of Rhoades, 594, In v. 119 Idaho fense. State moral sensi- fense has evolved as and ethical 455, (1991), Supreme P.2d the Idaho 809 457 of tives have increased on basis increased stated, Legislature Court “The Idaho revised knowledge, but that does not alter scientific de- the criminal code abolish core fact that has been defense Searcy, v. fense criminal cases.” See State (1990). 914, for centuries. 632, Idaho 798 916-17 118 Korell, 316, 213 Mont. 690 P.2d State History of demonstrates that the defense (1984), Supreme 997 the Montana Court enlightened insanity is to a fair essential stated, “Montana has abolished tradition- system justice and that is fundamen- “[i]t al use of as a Section 76- defense.” system jurisprudence tal to our that a 2-305(1) de- has also abolished per- cannot convicted for acts below, Utah; however, explained fense Skinner, People v. 39 formed while insane.” statutory dealing in- the Utah scheme Cal.Rptr. 217 Cal.3d sane offenders is more inhumane and callous “jurisprudential under- than the Idaho and Montana schemes. nonresponsibility, pinnings” or in- sanity, origins “reach back to the of Western

III. DUE PROCESS legal Assoc., thought.” Am. Bar ethical ABA Health Stan- Criminal Justice Mental Four Under the due clauses (1989) ABA [hereinafter dards 324 Stan- teenth Amendment Constitution (1724-26); dards]; I, see Hawkins Wil- States and article section 7 United Constitution, Blackstone, government may not liam Commentaries the Utah (4th (1898);2 1 Russell on ed. Jewish teachings, Crimes sorbed ethical classical 1865).3 years, philosophy, For hundreds of the common and Roman law. Platt See & Diamond, morally required supra, law has that a defendant be at 356. culpable punished before he can be Standards, ABA n. at 324 Strasburg, malum in crime. se centuries, Anglo-American For over four

Wash. 110 P. As the held criminality law has that there can be no explain: ABA Standards when there is a defect understanding total B.C., early century As as the sixth com- ability or a to comprehend reality. loss mentary scriptures on the Hebrew distin- Long psychiatry, before rise of the law so guished between harmful acts traceable criminality, held. For there to been fault and those that occur without fault. necessary degree there be least some scholars, paradigm To these ancient rationality, making possible degree some type the latter of act was one committed Rea, of free choice. Mens at 1004.4 The child, by a incapable who was seen as Psychiatric recog- American Association has weighing implications person- the moral point: nized behavior, willful; al even when retarded naturally isMan endowed with these two and insane were likened to chil- faculties, great understanding liberty Diamond, dren. Platt Origins See & of will.... The consent of the will is that Development the ‘Wild Beast" Con- which renders human actions either com- cept Mental Illness and Its Relation to culpable.... mendable or [I]t follows Responsibility, Theories Criminal that, where is a there total defect of the [hereinaf- J.Hist.Behav.Sci. understanding, there is no free act of the ter Platt Diamond]. cited as & The Greek will. philosophers, moral as far least back Ass’n, Psychiatric Am. Statement on the In- B.C., century fifth considered the distinc- (Dec. 1982). sanity 2 Defense tion culpable noneulpable between a and odd, indeed, It Legislature that the and among act to be the “unwritten laws of majority a accept of this Court would supported by nature the universal moral theory deterministic of human nature that Jones, sense of mankind.” B. The Law abolishing forms the basis for (1956). Legal Theory and the Greeks 264 The defense. Court relies on the AMA Com- pervaded The view same Roman law and Report, mittee which states: appeared teaching early in the Christian necessity, By psychiatrists tend to view all theologians. emerged Anglo-Saxon It product a human behavior as of determin- law century, no later than the twelfth istic influences. This deterministic orien- result of the “mutual influences and inter- cannot tation be reconciled with the con- theology action of Christian Anglo- will; indeed, cept very great of free to a Levitt, Origin Saxon The law.” psychiatry extent denies the fundamental Rea, Mens Doctrine 17 Ill.L.Rev. responsibility notion individual lies (1922). 136 The idea was reinforced at the heart of the criminal law. England after the Norman invasion Report, AMA at 2978. brought legal it thought, continental strongly by

itself theory may influenced Christian assump eth- While be a useful science, ics and had already canon ab- tion in the world it contradicts the will, 2. Blackstone wrote: [W]ithout the consent of the human ac- culpable; cannot tions be considered as nor any party But if be there doubt whether the be offence, there to where is no will commit an not, compos by jury. be this shall tried a any just why party there reason a should incur found, idiocy, And if he be total or absolute penalties of law made for the guilt, insanity, excuses from the and of course of crimes offenses. any punishment, from the criminal action (4th 1865). 1 Russell On Crimes 2 ed. deprivation committed under such sense.... proposi- 4.For more modern statements of the Blackstone, see, 4 tion, Currens, William Commentaries 25 e.g., United States v. 290 F.2d (3d Cir.1961); States, Carter v. United (D.C.Cir.1957). 3. Russell stated: 252 F.2d by English law in this doctrine common this nation and state principles on which by Century was Eighteenth indicated the criminal law and on which were founded sweeping statement to premise Blackstone’s underlying of our The based. must constitute crime there men and political legal institutions first ” Blackstone’s [4 will. Commen- agents, free choose be “vicious women are moral to taries commentators Rights 21]. Common-law right wrong. Bill of tween early pronounced Constitution, Century the Nineteenth the Declara the United States Constitution, although excep- principle, the same Rights of tion of the Utah few present problem tions relevant to our Independence are all not the Declaration of recognized. came proposition, as premised on that fundamental “Historically, our sub is our criminal law. (em- 250-51, U.S. 243^4 theory upon based criminal law is stantive omitted). added) (footnote phasis postulates punishing the vicious will. It majority opinion argues moral a choice between agent free confronted with solely by culpability an intent is established doing doing wrong choosing right and regard Mil a for a human without freely wrong.” Morissette v. United to do majority’s insanity. attempt defendant’s States, 246, 250 n. 842 U.S. S.Ct. justify abolition Pound, (quoting 244 n. L.Ed. solely finding culpability on the basis moral Sayre, Cases on Criminal Introduction intent, notwithstanding a aof defendant’s (1927)). that “[o]ur Law It is for that reason submit, insanity, is, I moral non- defendant’s punish collective conscience does allow effect, argument, recognizes That sense. impose Hollo ment it cannot blame.” where ani- beings human difference between States, way F.2d United theory, an mals. On the Court’s animal denied, (D.C.Cir.1945), cert. U.S. guilty wrong- its intentionally prey kills 1507, 92 L.Ed. 1774 now, ful conduct. The does centuries, premised criminality solely Morissette, not for Supreme States the United on an intent to commit a act when essentiality emphasized Court the universal justify extenuating or excuse circumstances systems in “all of law” of “the ancient mature negate wrongfulness. the act and moral mind”:5 requirement culpable of a state of Furthermore, majority does even injury The contention that can amount justify question address as to how can intention a crime when inflicted holding liable nonin- an insane defendant [i.e., provincial is culpable state] possibility tentional when there is no conduct or It is as universal and transient notion. of moral fault because the defendant persistent systems in mature as of judged reasonable-person a standard and in the human will a freedom of belief involving negligent in cases recMess or con- duty consequent ability and a normal duct. good between individual choose ruling shocking consequence today’s evil. A mental ele- relation between some may subject persons ment and for a harmful act is is that the state Utah insanity, familiar act a whether almost as instinctive as the child’s who as result to,” permanent, or exculpatory temporary I didn’t whether curable “But mean not, tardy capital punishment, minimum manda- has afforded the rational basis for a terms, tory prison other applicable deterrence and all and unfinished substitution of if exactly person criminal place of retaliation and sanctions reformation public It not whether the in- vengeance as the motivation for were sane. matters sanity by a prosecution. Unqualified acceptance paranoid schizophrenic is caused Law, (2d 1923). History English development 5. treatment of the of the ed. For a brief culpa- concepts fault or setting history of free will and criminal For texts out the Biblical, Greek, Roman, Continental, bility in law, English, defense common see Jodie law, Raydin, Anglo-American see Max In- Light Twilight Dusk: Between Federal Crimi- tent, Criminal, Encyclopedia Soc.Sci. 126 Insanity Defense, 40 nal Law and the Volitional (1967). an treatment of the devel- For extensive Hastings L.J. 12 n. 54 Maitland, law, opment English 2see Pollock & delusion, Moreover, degenerative a brain disease such the whole structure of the crimi- nal code to varying degrees calibrates crimes disease,6 unexpected Alzheimer’s or an fault, moral as well as to the nature of the prescription effect of side medication that degrees itself. act The various of homicide— insanity.7 gives temporary rise to homicide, aggravated degree murder, second majority’s argument In addition the that manslaughter, negligent homicide —are enough culpa- intent alone show moral degree based on the of moral fault with bility simply wrong. Thus, Under current which defendant an acts. intentional (1) by may capital murder per- aggravated intentional crimes committed sane be homicide, (2) 76-5-202; § Utah Code Ann. justifiable sons be criminal or and non- murder, (3) § degree 5—203(l)(a); second criminal, depending degree on the of moral 76— (extreme manslaughter emotional distur- example, fault. For an infant not criminal- imperfect legal justification), bance act, ly any prohibited hable for not even an (4) 5—203(l)(b)—(e); justifiable § homi- 76— killing, intentional for the reason that cide, 76-2-402(1), § depending on circum- simply capacity infant lacks moral and there- bearing stances on the blameworthiness of capacity.8 fore lacks An criminal adult who 'the defendant’s mind. Nonintentional kill- intentionally kills commit does not a criminal ings graded according are also to the state of if he acts in or in act self-defense defense of mind, fault, or moral which a defendant Likewise, acts, person’s others.9 though (1) killing may acts. Nonintentional sec- criminal, intentional and otherwise are not murder, degree i.e., depraved ond indiffer- duress,10 if the act is done under murder, felony § ence murder and 76-5- property,12 habitation11 or or in (2) (reckless 203(l)(c)-(d); manslaughter con- effectuating very an And from arrest.13 ear- (3) duct), 76-5-205(l)(a); § negligent homi- ly days pres- territorial until when the cide, 76-5-206; § automobile homi- enacted, by ent statute was an act done cide, short, § degree 76-5-207. In person as a result was not blameworthiness, moral based on a defen- 4387, 4388; §§ Comp. criminal. 1888 L. Utah mind, state of dant’s determines whether a Comp.L. §§ 1898 Utah &R.S. killing and, is, if criminal at all degree 4072. severity the crime and the Leseo, M.D., Phillip person 6. See A. Murder-Suicide A is not an offense when he Disease, engaged proscribed 37 J.Am.Geriatrics Soc. in the conduct Alzheimer's because he was coerced to do the use or so threatened physical upon imminent use of unlawful force person, him aor third which force or threat- Unexpected prescription 7. side effects medi- ened force a of reasonable firmness in apparently extraordinarily cations have caused situation would not resisted. bizarre behaviors that can corrected Francisco, change of San medications. bite- states, 76-2-405(1) per- Code Ann. "A pieces sized found at flesh were the home of justified using against son is in force another 87-year-old being an woman who was "canni- reasonably when and to the extent that he be- by daughter. 61-year-old balized” her The necessary prevent lieves that the force is or daughter antidepressant taking had been Pro- Mom, 87, entry terminate the other's unlawful into or at- by Daughter, zac. Police 'Cannibalized' upon 8, 1991, tack his habitation." Say, Republic, Arizona Nov. at A16. states, person § provides, 8. Utah Code Ann. per- § 76-2-301 "A Utah Code 12. Ann. 76-2-406 "A force, criminally responsible per- justified using deadly is for conduct son is force, other than age against formed before he reaches of fourteen and to the another when extent years.” reasonably that he believes that force is neces- sary prevent or terminate interfer- property...." personal ence with real or 76-2-402(1) states, per- § 9. Utah Code Ann. "A justified threatening using son force against another when and to the extent that he provides, "Any § 13. Utah Code Ann. 76-2-403 reasonably necessary believes force that such force, using justified except person....” to defend himself or a third force, deadly reasonably which he believes to be necessary to effect himself or or to defend anoth- 76-2-302(1) bodily making Code Ann. states: er from an harm while arrest." 378 1511, 1521 measure, countability, UCLA L.Rev. 39 large same

punishment. Morse, (1992); Excusing against persons Stephen J. crimes true other property. Insanity against Crazy: crimes Reconsid- Defense (1985) 777, ered, [here- 58 S.Cal.L.Rev. insanity defense and The abolition of the In principle, inafter Morse]. model,” “mens rea as adoption of the through back at defense can be traced done, rejected by Congress Utah has was 1,000 law, per- years of British least jury States. After a found United Roman, Christian, haps back as far Hinckley by reason insani John Judaic law.... ty attempted of an assassination of President Congress Reagan, under the United States point gleaned from to be this discus- insanity law.14 took of federal reformation for- simple: specific sion is Whatever approach proposed and The abolition through- mulation of the defense been rejected hearings in nu lengthy after which history, always it has the case been out scholars, legal psychiatrists, and oth merous assign crimi- the law has been loath testified, Congress “‘felt that ers because responsibility to actor was un- nal who dangers of an concerns about the able, at he or she committed the the time and because aboli defense were overstated crime, being to know either what was done alter basis tion would that fundamental wrong. This basic tenet has or that was Anglo-American criminal law: the existence entirely apparently unaffected ad- been culpability prerequisite moral psychology. See vances in medicine ” Report 7-8. Poh punishment.’ House at Perlin, Myths: Unpacking L. Michael added). lot, (emphasis F.2d Symbolism Mythology Insanity Insanity Construing the federal Defense Jurisprudence, 40 Case W.Res. Defense 1984,15 Appeals Reform Act of the Court Per- [hereinafter L.Rev. history for the Circuit referred to the Tenth As the Justice Harlan noted lin]. first place in An- of the its nearly years ago, one hundred while one glo-American jurisprudence: goals justice system the criminal justice system punishes protect public Our criminal punish is to criminals reasons, many chief those it convicts for safety, some “crimes the most atrocious against among them retribution subject crim- character” must criminal, crimes, of future deterrence imposition such inal sanctions if Kelly v. rehabilitation of the criminal. See require “to de- would the courts sanctions Robinson, U.S. part principles in crim- fundamental (1986). However, L.Ed.2d 216 we recognition inal and enforce- are hold accountable those who moral- by every ment demanded conduct; ” historically ly culpable for their humanity justice. consideration morally very crazy” we have not held “the States, Davis v. United U.S. least ac- accountable some their L.Ed. Arenella, Convicting the tions. Peter See Denny-Shaffer, 2 F.3d United States Morally Reassessing the Rela- Blameless: tionship Legal and Moral Ac- Between quali- Hinckley appreciate noteworthy the nature and 14. It that John was not was unable acquittal still wrongfulness turned loose his but is confined ty acts. Mental jury disease that the found disease or defect does not otherwise constitute to have caused his criminal acts. a defense. (b) proof. defendant has the Burden of —The insanity

15. defense that was enacted The federal insanity proving by the defense burden of M'Naghten by Congress is a variation of the test convincing evidence. clear § in U.S.C. is set out 18 17: placing proof by burden In addition to the (a) is an affirmative Defense.—It Affirmative defendant, convincing on the clear evidence prosecution any a defense to Federal prong the volitional of the the statute abolishes that, at the time of the commission of statute the M’Naghten defendant, offense, defense. constituting the the acts defect, as a of a disease or result severe mental 379 justices approach Supreme The abolition has not of the been United States Court jurisdiction adopted any except expressing in other Ida- doubt about the federal constitu- Montana, insanity tional status the defense in ho and and the schemes those cases having nothing do with the issue not distinguishable are states are from the Utah any analysis based of the law far and fall approach The scheme. abolition has also indicating short of how that Court would rule rejected been American Bar the Associa- 16 were it confronted with the issue. Further- Psychiatric tion and the American Associa- more, there is substantial federal law that supported by tion.17 It was the American way. events, looks the other In all a state majority Medical Association. The relies supreme duty court to assess the issue deterministic, heavily on the AMA’s nonfree- under its own state constitution. approach, will designed which was to “correct myopic insanity the focus of majority heavily relies on the Montana emphasizing mercy ap- cases, Korell, considerations of and Idaho State v. 213 Mont. propriate mentally (1984), for all treatment disor- 1000 (not just offenders).18 Searcy, dered 118 P.2d insane Idaho 798 914 offenders” short, They distinguishable. the AMA stunning holds the view statutes Montana and provide law Idaho abolished an should treatment for all as defense, Utah’s, affirmative as un- mentally offenders, does but though disordered even Utah, require like at states least an disorder much less severe than insani- assessment of a mental culpabili- defendant’s ty though and even the disorder has no ty time the crime for purpose Thus, connection to the criminal act. Indeed, Korell, imposing a sentence. “mercifully” notion Utah should im- which constitutionality sustained the pose mentally health all mental treatment on statute, Montana indicated that a full assess- ill elimináis whether the mental illness has sanity ment of the defendant’s and moral any relation to criminal conduct not and culpability required before criminal sanc- penal- should suffer same Korell, imposed.19 tions could be 690 P.2d ties their persons, for acts sane even Supreme 996. The sought Montana Court death. justify abolishing defense on the majority The federal eases the refers to do ground legislature the Montana had support constitutionality of a statute adopted ill verdict defense; that abolishes the which, Utah’s, requires sentencing unlike simply right deal with the of the states to court to consider of the evidence defendant’s procedure fashion the for proving the content mental condition “[i]f the court finds that of the defense and the details its substan- the defendant at the time the commission tive Oregon, content. See Leland v. 343 U.S. a mental disease offense suffered (1952) L.Ed. 1302 ... mandatory minimum sen- defect (constitutional under Fourteenth Amendment prescribed by tence need offense place proving beyond burden of 46-14-312(2) apply.” Mont.Code Ann. defendant). Korell, reasonable doubt on Not one of added); (emphasis see right the cases cited Thus, deals 996-97. lack defendant’s of moral United or of a States state to abolish the culpability derangement insanity. majority’s defense of reliance when crime was committed result on random statements made in few punishment, although concur- no criminal the defen- ring dissenting opinions subjected stigma of two or three dant is still and other Report, 16. Justice Insanity Criminal Mental Health Standards AMA Committee Defense tent, (first (1983)), Psychiatric Criminal Trials and Limitation timony, Tes- adapted draft 2in Standards (emphasis 251 JAMA (2d Supp.); Criminal Justice ch. 7 ed. added). Standards, commentary, ABA & 7-6.1 at 336-38. Byers, 19. See also State v. Mont. Psychiatric 17. American Association Statement on (1993), understanding P.2d right held Insanity Am.J.Psychiatiy wrong aspect required Defense Montana mental under law. the of crime mental illness at time the Utah dant’s of a criminal conviction. disabilities mitigating into a procedure assessing a account as provides such for to be taken no sanity punishment; the Utah’s stat- imposing at the time of crime. factor defendant’s require court Utah does not a ute does not. a scheme sim The Idaho statutes establish capacity a defendant’s time to assess at upholding Idaho’s stat to Montana’s. ilar wrongfulness his appreciate the conduct defense, Idaho Su abolishing the the ute Thus, though the crime. even the time of at § Code 19- preme Court referred to Idaho starkly bizarrely is and delusion- a defendant “specifically requires the sen crime, that is not a at the time of the al tencing capacity ‘the the court to consider sentence, imposing ex- mitigating factor in wrongfulness appreciate the defendant jury might capital a cept that in a case conduct to the conduct or to his conform deciding factor in whether consider that at time the requirements the law the impose a sentence rather than the death life Card, 121 charged.’” v. Idaho State offense Although guilty penalty. Utah has (emphasis 825 P.2d verdict, mentally ill that verdict serves — denied, U.S. —, added), cert. purpose than the Idaho and Mon- different Idaho L.Ed.2d mentally guilty do. ill verdicts tana procedure Supreme stated the Court mentally guilty and ill verdict and Utah’s mentally assessing culpability moral of a the mentally require guilty and ill a de- plea of the the time of the crime in ill offender at “mentally that the defendant termination necessary sentencing phase “provides the trial, at the not at the time the ill” time prevent safeguards” to Idaho scheme - §§ Utah Code Ann. 77-16a-103 crime. principles of offending constitutional capacity at time 104. Mental Id., 1086; process. at see A relevant under Utah law. crime §Ann. 19-2523. Idaho Code culpability lack of moral at defendant’s schemes, statutory Regarding these crime has no effect either time Report AMA noted: finding guilt In addi- imposing sentence. tion, with Utah statute concerned Both the Montana and the Idaho statutes illness,” insanity. “mental permit disease or consideration mental punish- mitigation defect as a factor 77-16a-104(3) (Supp. Ann. Utah Code sentencing stage ment at the of the trial. 1993) explicit that condition is makes Moreover, these statutes authorize sentencing: “If the court finds immaterial during period treatment court order convincing by clear and evidence that specified in probation of confinement or ill, currently mentally it shall defendant is if the sentence it concludes clear impose any imposed sentence that could be convincing evidence the defendant suf- upon who is defendant fers from a mental disease or defect mentally the same ill who convicted of appreciate him “to renders unable “[Ujnder added.) (Emphasis offense.” wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform mentally ill’ ‘guilty statute ... Utah law,” requirements of his conduct to the on the state mind focuses defendant’s treatment is and needed. available regardless sentencing, time his state mentally Finally, they provide pris- ill no mind the time the crime” oners be transferred to noneorrection- of necessary relationship to the causal defen- al facilities such treatment. bearing unlawful act and dant’s Report, at AMA defendant’s blameworthiness. (Utah 1993) (quot- Young, 853 P.2d Although I do not believe that Idaho ing Legislative Survey 1983, 1984 Utah pass and Montana schemes constitutional — 115). also L.Rev. See State DePlon- muster, Utah there is nonetheless a difference be- (Utah 1987), which ty, 749 P.2d tween scheme and the Idaho and committing “that a defendant who significant. stated Montana schemes ill to state mental require and Montana statutes defen- Idaho hospital” length provides greater greater As does not affect the science and functions, sentence, knowledge how as to the brain though even the defen- defendant’s impor- at hand all issue becomes the more may normality. to dant have returned Men- insanity Increasingly, tant. the causes of only whether tal illness is relevant to Clearly, insanity identified. can be given therapy defendant should be a max- by cognitive caused loss functions and period eighteen imum or until he months in ways volitional controls various that are has reached maximum from benefit psychoses. example, not delusional For neu- Thereafter, therapy. the defendant must rological degeneration types and other prison serve out his sentence as other impairment present signifi- of the brain can offense, defendant convicted of the re- same culpability legal cant issues moral gardless capable he of whether was under- insanity. by Criminal acts can be caused standing the of his conduct at nature unexpected prescription drugs side effects See Code time the offense. Ann. aggressive and sometimes violent 77-16a-202(l)(a), (b); Utah Code Ann. kleptomaniac propensities of Alzheimer’s § 77-16a-203. patients might impris- well result in the onment under the Utah scheme short, In Utah is a defendant’s everyone agree morally whom would are not insanity nonresponsibility or moral immateri- blameworthy imprisonment and whose could guilt imposed, al to and the sentence cruel, only be if not barbaric.20 except may that a senteneer consider phase penalty defendant’s of a supreme squarely Three state courts have capital jurisdic- case. No other common law sought held statutes unconstitutional that permitted tion has the total elimination of preclude asserting from defendant de insanity as a factor be considered crimi- charge a criminal at fense trial. cases; nal court other has ever held such Lange, In State v. 168 La. 128 So. a scheme constitutional. Utah alone is a (1929), Supreme the Louisiana Court defendant’s illness or at precluded held that a statute which a court exculpating time neither an crime fac- considering from of a defendant guilt at phase mitigating tor nor even a pro violated that state’s constitutional due sentencing. factor at right jury provisions. cess trial Aggressive 20. disease Alzheimer's inflicts 1.5 million Ameri- oids and ease, Behavior in Dis- Alzheimer’s (1994). cans. Med.Hypotheses Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disor- Inc., Assoc., ders Alzheimer's It is a immediate cause of this is unknown disinhibition dementing cognitive dysfunc- illness causes may but be in a found hormonal imbalance in loss, control, memory tion such as loss of motor the cerebral Id. at cortex. hallucinations, systematized delusions and commonly Alzheimer's sufferers manifest physical as well others, as behavioral disorders such as disinhibition in violence toward self confusion, aggression, sleeplessness, increased kleptomania, preoccupation bodily func- kleptomania. generally See tions, J. Pierre Loebel exposing themselves to others. Loebel Leibovici, Management & Leibovici, 842; Adrian Tke Other & at Neil Stoude- Kahn & Alan Hallucinations, Delusions, Psychiatric States: Management Pharmacologic Behavioral and mire. Disturbances, and Other of N.Am. Disease, Med.Clinics Patients with 79 J.Med.As- Alzheimer's Leibovici]; [hereinafter Loebel & Lin- Georgia soc. of behavioral ah, Disturbance, Cognitive da Teri et Behavioral disorders overall are not associated with the level Dysfunction, and Functional Skill: Prevalence cognitive degeneration, in the mild least Disease, Relationship Teri, Alzheimer's stages and moderate disease. 112— (1989) [hereinafter J.Am.Geriatrics Soc. 109 14; Leibovici, Thus, Loebel & at 841. an Al- Teri]. Behavioral aberrations are often manifes- patient may possess required zheimer’s men- tations of a of normal loss inhibitions. tal state to commit crime but not be able to abnormality necessary judgment "The exercise behavio[r]al common or discretion to aggressive responsible manifestations in Alzheimer's his actions. exaggerated impulsiveness example, Judge Wajert, described as an ... For John M. is, stepped eight years deficit of normal down the bench after later, likely consequences Pennsylvania judge. years of an are continu- he action Two was $125,000 ously embezzling judged monitored be unac- arrested for from clients. Pickles, cepted judge suffering are inhibited.” V.R. Neuroster- It was found the former J., State, 142, (Ethridge, opinion) lead v. at 584 Sinclair 161 Miss. 132 So. 132 So. added). The (emphasis court referred curiam), 581, (per held unconstitu- universality quot- of the defense and that abolished the affir- tional a state statute Insanity: on ed Smoot insanity in murder trials defense of mative the the ground on that statute violated the considered, jurispru- “Insanity in the punish- unusual cruel and state constitutional nations, to de- civilized be a dence all provisions. Reviewing ment and due against punishment crime.... for fense history the defense legal the reasoning Animus involves exercise law, Mississippi Anglo-American the Su- powers, the result the criminal which preme stated: Court contrary recognized to act is closely justice.... So rules of law and shocking to certainly and inhuman [I]t to as a has idea defense punish person an act when he does a for juris- crime been woven into the criminal to capacity to know act or not have English speaking prudence countries consequences. its This been

judge has part that it has become the fundamental history throughout the law thereof, to the that a statute laws extent state, English history na- and the attempts deprive to which defendant of prior to the American Revolution. In tion right it plead to will be unconstitution- words, long-settled other been and void.” al people through every age of the conviction added) (quoting Smoot Id. (emphasis at 584 any knowledge we have 372). Insanity, at on English thought and sentiment. All civi- recognized nations have that it was lized Court in State Supreme Washington punish futile and useless undertake 1020, Strasburg, 106, 110 P. Wash. any person compos mentis who is non for (1910), also held unconstitutional a statute person restrain such from act either banning un evidence a defendant was committing or another act of the same “by insanity, idiocy of his able reason kind, him similar or to make feel imbecility, comprehend the nature and society committed, human respect quality for the law for act or to under stated, wrong.” that it The court that a sane should feel. stand was and welfare clothes, Leibovici, patients. rumpled demented Loebel & at from Alzheimer’s. He wore During seven-day longer no shaved. and he Although finding physical medical research is trial, slumped vacantly he in a chair and stared behavior, explanations for this Loebel & Leibovi- at the floor. His counsel claimed ci, at an affliction can have serious such defense, Wajert was to assist in his own unable reported legal consequences. It when impaired that Alzheimer's so his client that was John Allen Borden arrested a murder thing only judge the former could understand City charge, police question did not Kansas it, money he and so he took was that needed guilt about no him his innocence because able to exercise kind of that he They investigator thought he understand. could judgment. Wajert did not of his rational know probably would not remember knew Borden condition, degenerated although his wife said: beating of a resident a nurs- death fellow at (about repeatedly been told afflic- "He has home, killer, ing even tion), Why whether he was the he he said doesn’t remember. Borden, 84, just day you suppose questions other ‘What is the do what their were. suffered ” Undermined, A Mind When matter me?' Alzheimer’s. Victim Held in Alzheimer's Judge Chesco Did a Accused Star, Embezzlement City May Slaying, at 3. Kansas III?, Philadelphia Inquirer, April Become cognitive mild- Even when their abilities judge knew that he was at B01. Because ly impaired, judgment persons the moral of such money, taking knowledge was sufficient un- can be devastated. crime, even der Utah law to convict him of persons Imprisonment imposed Al- on such capacity though he lacked the mental to under- certainly zheimer's sufferers would be barbaric consequences of his acts. stand nature help and cruel. Criminal cannot urge money to take the was not His disinhibited people legitimate penal pur- and serves these grabs candy unlike that a child who yet, pose, would be such paying. without store addition, subject imprisonment and all other criminal aggression some form of occurs significant the course of illness in number of sanctions. 757; elementary Cal.Rptr. “[I]t seems too to call citation 704 P.2d at see general show that the rule Joyner, authorities to also 225 Conn. 625 A.2d centuries, (1993); Korell, now at least 800-01 and has been State v. 213 Mont. countries, all that there can be common-law ” no crime without intent.’ Sinclair, majority Lange, asserts that added) P. at (emphasis (quoting 1024 State v. Strasburg distinguishable and are Constatine, 102, 384, Wash. P. 43 86 384 the statutes in those cases all barred evi- (1906)). rejected argument court insanity, dence of whereas the Utah statute criminology had science re permits insanity evidence insofar as it proposition nounced the will and free held negates required mental intent that the statute violated the state’s constitu apparent simply cases. That difference guaranteeing process tional clauses due not a distinction. The evidence the statutes right by jury law and the to a trial in crimi barred in those cases went to the affirmative nal P. at a concurring cases. 110 1025. In insanity. Here, defense of if the State opinion, stated, Chief Justice Rudkin “For proves prima crime, facie elements of in history, the first time so as we are far asserting the defendant is also barred from advised, Legislature a civilized state insanity? the affirmative Lange, defense place idiot, attempted has who hath no Sinclair, Strasburg squarely hold that understanding nativity, the imbe from legislatures prohibited insane, cile and the who have lost their process clauses of state and federal constitu- understanding through disease or mental de abolishing tions from Skinner defense. man, cay, possession and the sane in the full is to the same effect. Those cases stand faculties, equal all his mental on an foot squarely against majority. ing the criminal law.” Id. before (Rudkin, C.J., concurring); also see State v. sum, In concept for centuries the of moral White, 551, 942, Wash.2d P.2d has been blameworthiness the foundation of banc) (1962) (en (stating legislature’s concept equally the criminal law and that unconstitutional), attempt to abolish defense legitimacy essential to the law’s its moral denied, 883, t. 375 U.S. cer authority society today. in a free The crimi- 154, (1963). S.Ct. 11 L.Ed.2d 113 represents society. nal law the conscience of unlawful, declaring In what is it also declares Supreme addition the California Court society morally what to be deems abhorrent. recently has held that a California statute If the pur- criminal law does not serve that dealing with the had to pose but is used as an instrument of provide exculpation construed to of one values, control social not based on moral responsible morally for his acts because society’s right wrong surely sense of will it is system jurispru- “fundamental to our further, dissipate even and the criminal law dence that a cannot be convicted for eventually disgust will earn the scorn and performed acts People while insane.” society. Skinner, Cal.Rptr. 39 Cal.3d The court concept responsibility stated: based moral blameworthiness indis- just rea or wrongful pensable Because mens intent is a to the fair and treatment of aspect neurological fundamental of criminal im- cognitive whose suggestion pairments perceive defendant whose render them unable to in inability appreciate illness results people. and react to the world as real normal wrongful punished Punishing his act is could those suffer from such im- who imprisonment death or pairments recognized pe- raises serious serves none of the questions objectives. Society ample of constitutional dimension under nal has means oth- both protecting the due and unusu- than criminal law for cruel er itself punishment provisions al of the Constitu- from those them dan- whose makes gerous. Although tion. the definition of 76-2-305, mat- centuries, a defendant —no princi- the core Under over the varied retarded, insane, how how no matter society ter punish ple that a civilized does every how moral matter blameless principle is one people has not. That point guilt treated for ethical of view—is principles of fundamental essential human punishment purposes as a enlight- without which “fair fairness that he knows functions so brain impossible.” system justice would be ened cogni- and so that the real world understands Connecticut, 319, 325, 58 302 U.S. Palko permit him to capacities and volitional overruled, tive (1937), 149, 152, 82 L.Ed. 288 S.Ct. beings to the world normal human react Maryland, 395 part, Benton v. on unrelated Clearly, § the sane 76-2-305 treats react. 23 L.Ed.2d U.S. similarly if the insane as were The statute also discriminates situated. § I that unconstitution- submit 76-2-305 is of among the on the basis the content insane I, process of article is al under the due clauses That discrimination of their delusions. Rights patently of and It serves 7 of Utah Declaration irrational invidious. section con- purpose. It has no rational Amendment of the Unit- no rational and the Fourteenth public, protection to the nection ed States Constitution.21 historically accomplished civil has been confinement. EQUAL PROTECTION IV. argues majority that discrimina- The THE

OF LAW ground on that tion is reasonable I, article section 24 of the Utah Under to do act is to demon- intent an sufficient Constitution, operation the uniform majority culpability. moral The refers strate similarly persons provision, laws situated person kills another to an insane who similarly dissimilarly must be treated only strangulation thinking that he is while persons must be treated dissimilar- situated example squeezing grapefruit a (Utah Lewis, ly. v. Malan rationality of the illustrates the discrimina- 1984); Gaufin, also 867 P.2d 572 see Lee v. majority’s argument if a The is that tion.22 (Utah 1993); City another, thinking Greenwood v. North person that he is strangles (Utah 1991). Lake, In simply squeezing grapefruit, perpetra- Salt a addition, morally culpable did not the discrimination must substantial- tor is not because he ly person. But if a defen- legitimate legislative purpose. intend kill another further rea, argument exceptions rejecting to the that the mens 21. There are the law few abolition, unconstitutionally requirement the criminal law should be model against criminally solely culpability. liability is discriminates based on moral imposed, Strict delusions, the example, regulatory-type the basis of the content of their for for on crimes states; majority compliance pro- designed with to ensure malum argue various model hibitum offenses used regulations. enforce kinds Defendants that Utah's mens rea Goodell, See, e.g., illegally v. ill de- United States differentiates between Cir.1993) (9th (public safety); solely Le content their delu- 990 F.2d fendants Antioch, may under Village vas insane defendant kill & Levas 684 F.2d sions. One (7th Cir.1982) ordinance); something (drug paraphernalia killing delusion he is the severe Poultry George under a that is not human. Another kill Watson as, & Co. v. W. Thom Seafood Inc., being delusion that he is attacked and that N.C. S.E.2d (traffic violations) (court justified The first refused to extend strict actions are as self-defense. involving guilty by liability found "to crime moral delin is reason model, may be quency”). position mens the second rea while defendants, requires According each is rea an ele convicted. clause a mens that includes ill, apply exception equally mentally differ- but are treated ment of fault does not "clinically indistinguish- regulatoiy-type ently made of because some has been for See, Dotterweich, system” e.g., able causes them to fenses. United States delusional 64 S.Ct. 88 L.Ed. 48 different hallucinations. 320 U.S. (1943) (awareness wrongdoing necessary for We find that there is a reasonable basis Food, Drug mens this difference and that the rea model conviction of violation of Federal Scott, Act); arbitrary capricious. & see LaFave & Cosmetics also (2d 1986). 3.8(b) legislature majority opinion Law ed. These asserts "the Criminal usually punishable by do not fines. has drawn a line between who crimes actually insane, simply he ishment dant kills another who believes not for the equal pro- act. That is not denial paranoid kill trying him tection, but the infliction of also cruel delusion, the schizophrenic defendant mor- unusual in violation criminally culpable ally because he in- Eighth Amendment. Robinson v. Califor- though person, kill a even a sane tended to nia, 660, 667, 370 U.S. may kill person and not be self-defense (1962) (it L.Ed.2d 768 cruel unusual majority of a crime. The asserts that punish one for an status con- unavoidable reason, could, Legislature have con- sickness). dition, such as a one intends to kill a cluded that who Furthermore, age children under the in a belief of self-defense is more delusional subject fourteen are not to criminal sanctions strangles culpable than one who another Historically, age at all. children under merely belief that he is delusional ages seven and children between the of seven squeezing grapefruit. and fourteen who were not able to discern right wrong, between and insane capricious It is distinction vacuous. capacity held to were lack criminal for essen- arbitrary culpability to make criminal four-year-old tially A who similar reasons. depend on the content a delusion. Both points a gun, pulls trigger, loaded criminally punished delusional, kills another is not be- persons are and if one were to presumes a cause the law that child does not judge persons on both the basis their wrongfulness the understand nature the applied delusions and the criminal law as in immaturity incapaci- act due to his delusions, the of their neither context would ty. However, person an insane who suffers Furthermore, guilty person a a of crime. inability from the same understand either seriously deranged who is so as to believe wrongfulness the nature or act is the squeezing grapefruit that a he is some 76-2-305, subject punishment object object inanimate or animate other conduct, culpable insane, being for but for strangles than a human when he an- is, engaging that for he conduct would dangerous society other is at least as engaged insanity. but for his one who kills in he the delusional belief that statutory The discrimination the between acting acquit is in self-defense. To the first insane and who are not and between and find the second of intentional kill- addition, persons insane is invidious. the subject ing punishment and him to the same legitimate purpose. discriminations serve no invidiously as a person sane is irrational and V. AND CRUEL UNUSUAL discriminatory. PUNISHMENT statutory The discrimination between sane majority The does not address the consti- persons and insane is also irrational. tutional claim abolition of the that pun- a cruel and complete The defense of self-defense is violates the unusual ishment clause. It asserts that the is issue legal justification per- and moral for sane ripe for no has decision because trial another, killing son though who kills even Nevertheless, place. majority taken ad- is intentional. That defense rests on the and dresses decides the facial attack on deeply self-preser- human instinct rooted process equal statute based on and vation. anYet who acts under protection solely ground on claims compelling delusion another is about to charged defendants have been felonies who, take his life and within terms of indicating intent have filed affidavits an delusion, self-defense, reasonably kills in to assert as a defense. The claim murder, punishable for intentional even statute also offends cruel though driving instinct that motivates the punishment unusual clauses exactly act person. the same as for a sane States stands on United Constitutions exact- case, imposes ly footing In that pun- the law the same as the due comprehend taking a human life and those who do.” 2934, Lynaugh, U.S. S.Ct.

equal claims that the Court protection 2953, Before the 106 L.Ed.2d unjusti- It is both inconsistent decided. Constitution, adoption the United States to refuse to decide fied for the Court punish- noted Sir Edward Coke punishment attack on cruel and unusual irresponsible pur- serves no ing the statute. stated, pose, it is cruel and unusual. He act punishing person I submit of an offender for exam- execution “[T]he gra- is a as the result of committed ple, poena paucos perveniat ut ad ad omnes pain. (that few, infliction It advances none tuitous punishment may but reach the all); objectives the criminal law. It is of it so is not when the fear affect but executed; be a pain for an irrational reason and a madman is but should infliction of spectacle, against both miserable and unusual. infliction uncivi- cruel cruelty, inhumanity can be extreme prohibit- punishments lized and inhumane Sinclair, Quoted in example others.” Eighth cruel and ed Amendment’s J., (Ethridge, opinion); lead at 583-84 132 So. provision. Furman unusual 4.1(b)-(c), Scott, § at 306. see also LaFave & Georgia, 408 92 S.Ct. U.S. Blackstone, adoption of the also before the J., (Brennan, 33 L.Ed.2d Constitution, position. took the same Justice Dulles, concurring); Trop v. 356 U.S. Douglas, concurring opinion O. William 590, 597, 2 L.Ed.2d 630 Robinson, wrote: Legislature’s power punish broad must be Eighth expresses the re- Amendment within the of civilized stan- exercised limits against vulsion civilized man barbarous Trop, at at 598. dards. 356 U.S. 78 S.Ct. “cry against man’s acts —the horror” Punishment cannot be inflicted the basis inhumanity man.... to his fellow person. of a physical or mental condition Coke, enlightenment By the time Robinson, 1421; 370 U.S. coming respects said the insane. Coke 225, California, see v. 355 U.S. 78 Lambert be that the execution a madman “should 240, (1957); 2 228 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d Sinclair v. law, against spectacle, a miserable both 142, 581, State, 132 161 Miss. So. inhumanity cruelty, and of extreme punishments must have Criminal example can to 6 others.” rough proportionality to the nature of some (4th 6). 1797, p. Third Inst. ed. Coke’s 277, Helm, the crime. Solem v. 463 U.S. 4 Blackstone endorsed this view Coke. 3001, 3007-10, 285-90, 77 L.Ed.2d (Lewis 1897), p. 25. Commentaries ed. (1983). “Although 637 the determination Robinson, 676, at 82 S.Ct. at 1425 370 U.S. punishment may be that a severe is excessive J., concurring). (Douglas, Lord Hale wrote grounded judgment dispropor- in a that it is punishing the was inhumane: insane crime, significant to the the more tionate very difficult to define the invisible [I]t punishment penal serves no basis is the perfect partial line that divides insani- effectively purpose more than a less severe ty; upon rest but must circumstances Furman, 280, punishment.” at 92 408 U.S. duly weighed to be and considered both J., (foot- (Brennan, concurring) at 2747 S.Ct. judge jury, lest on the one side omitted). note inhumanity be a kind of there towards punishment” The term “cruel and unusual of human nature. defects meaning to takes from what was considered 1 proposi- Russell 9 On Crimes at time the Bill of be cruel unusual punishment of a “kind tion that Rights adopted. Wainwright, was Ford v. inhumanity defects human towards the 399, 2595, 91 U.S. S.Ct. today day is as true as it was on the nature” (1986). The L.Ed.2d 335 United States Su- concept first embraced hundreds of stated, preme Court has “It was well settled years ago. ‘“Obviously an insane ... common law that ‘lunatics’ were inhumanely dealt accused of crime would be subject punishment merely for criminal acts com- if were with his considered punish- incapacit[y].” Penry degree v. crime mitted under reduce [that] ” Skinner, Justice, People DURHAM, dissenting: ment therefor.’ Cal.Rptr. Cal.3d I respectfully legislature, dissent. The in Coleman, (quoting People abolishing insanity, the defense of has de- (1942)). 20 Cal.2d 126 P.2d 349 parted so far from fundamental and tradi- Punishing legitimate the insane serves no tional notions blameworthiness in the penal purpose. Imposing on in- retribution prohibition criminal law as violate the persons nothing blind, sane more than a against cruel and unusual vengeance. atavistic guarantee of due of law con- mentally nonresponsible evolved shield I tained article the Utah Constitution. persons precisely from retribution In thoughtful lengthy publish- article they could not blamed for what had Review, ined the Utah Law Professor Mar- Sinclair, 584; done. 132 So. at LaFave & tin Gardner reviewed the develop- historical Scott, 4.1(c), Furthermore, punish- at 307. concept ment of mens rea. The first ing the insane does deter others from paragraph points of the article out: criminal conduct: Early English tradition, legal “Nothing strongly can more illustrate the liability idea arose that criminal entails popular ignorance respecting insanity than activity part some mental on the equally proposition, objectionable in its relating proscribed offender con- humanity logic, its the insane Coke, By duct. time of the maxim acts, punished should be for criminal ” “actus non reum nisi mens sit rea facit order to deter other insane (an act does not make one unless his doing thing.” the same mind guilty) ingrained had become well Robinson, at 1421 U.S. in the common and it remains a cen- J., (Douglas, concurring) (quoting Treatise precept Anglo-American tral Jurisprudence Insanity on Medical today. law (5th 1871)). ed. Gardner, Enigma: Martin R. The Mens Rea day society In a supposedly when more Observations on the Role Motive enlightened and should be more sensitive to Present, Criminal Law Past and 1993 Utah moral values and standards in conduct (footnotes omitted). L.Rev. affairs, human it is ironic that should goes article the ambi- document incorporate policy vengeance against guity meaning that surrounds the and role of help those who cannot their antisocial acts. law, articulating mens rea in criminal the the It is even more ironic that this Court would problem helpful way in purposes: a for our policy find such a I constitutional. submit that abolition of the defense is un- [M]any puzzles have become clearer in constitutional because it cruel light constitutes of is an ambig- the idea mens rea punishment unusual under both the notion, United merely uous sometimes used to de- States Utah Constitutions. required scribe the mental state crime, given the of a while at definition employed other express prin- times the CONCLUSION ciple culpable morally the are I would hold Code Ann. 76-2-305 justifiably punished. prior unconstitutional and reinstate the stat- added) (footnotes (emphasis at 639 Id. omit- governing insanity in ute cases until ted). concept is that thesis the mens Legislature modify the decides stan- rea evolved in the criminal law within two dard. Originally, traditions. the focus of the law I also concur in Justice DURHAM’S dis- motive,” onwas the notion of “evil and crimi- senting opinion. liability possible nal was not affirma- without proof. view, tive Under certain defenses DURHAM, J., (such dissenting actually concurs in insanity) negat- the as duress and STEWART, opinion general required Associate C.J. ed the mens rea for crimi- ness, majority a that I doubt could regardless of the result liability, nature nal I am con- in constitutional terms. specific crime. tolerate irre- vinced that these notions become hand, practice, on the other The modern understanding in our trievably embedded largely evil motive tradition abandons the I, process and article section by defining level at the definition offense abandoning precludes required for crime de- the Utah Constitution rea each mens Furthermore, imposi- particular permitting scriptively in terms of states them. jurisdictions generally sanctions, retain including the death mind. Most tion of criminal as defenses. Proof of insanity, and duress be consid- penalty, on who cannot excuses, theo- while these defenses affords morally culpable deserving of blame ered leaving unchallenged retically the state’s “cruel and unusual for their acts constitutes specific required proof state mind I, meaning article punishment” within the rea of the crime. as the mens element the Utah Constitution.1 section 9 of Thus, law levels of current embraces two in this ease decided virtu- Because requires proof mens rea: One level terms, keep ally important to abstract it is mind; level af- specific the other state question exactly what statute in mind situations, even fords certain excuses majority opinion accurately permits. The though specific offenders act points out crime, required but either of mind B, thinking merely A if kills he form, lack, the evil capacity or lack A squeezing grapefruit, does not have moral blame. motive essential for requisite rea for murder and mens (footnotes added) (emphasis Id. at 694-95 acquitted.... if A would However kills omitted). B, enemy thinking that B is an soldier [or Utah, approach of adopting devil, Martian, spirit bent evil Code, prac- follows the modern Model Penal justi- killing that the destruction] defining all with mens rea tice of crimes ..., requisite then A mens rea fied has specifically elements, in turn themselves de- for murder and could be convicted under particular in terms of states of mind. scribed prior law but not new attempted in legislature has section What the intentionally knowingly he from the criminal 76-2-305 is eliminate took another’s life. doctrine significant element Thus, person’s only the of an insane nature total excuse—the notion that a lack moral system distinguishes may we delusional those (because insanity) pre- culpability properly may punish from we not —someone punishment. legislature If vents criminal beings pieces who thinks that human power has the to eliminate blameworthiness morally blameworthy, fruit but some- prerequisite in the con- devils, ghosts, they are one who thinks that persons, it text of insane also abolish spirits, enemies is. The dis- or destructive self-defense, duress, mistake, infancy tinction is irrational and no theoretical could, fact, law. It excuses in the criminal justified legitimacy. on It cannot be of totally concept of eliminate the excuse as an juris- underlying our bases of criminal liability, thereby criminal aban- element of prudence. doning of centimes commitment in the west- punish- “just justifications The traditional for law tradition to the notions of des- ern erts,” retribution, proportionality, and fundamental fair- ment in the criminal law include “[Wjhere capac- perception long-standing is in an individual lacks the mental 1. This one Utah Brown, 46, 57, ity distinguish right wrong, law. State v. 36 Utah 102 P. from in refer- of, (1909), particular said: complained this court act ence to the responsible." law will not hold him at The test is whether defendant true State, offense, (quoting Howe Id. Neb. time of the had the commission announced, (1881)). N.W. The court in doing capacity to the act know understanding meaning of this of the doing wrong. context he was person legal- insanity, approval "[a]n insane cannot quoted also Id. The court with Brown, Supreme ly guilty following language be of criminal intent." 36 Utah the Nebraska 102 P. at 645. Court: deterrence, bring peace. and rehabilita- Mils to world incapacitation, who about isNor theory with the tion.2 Retribution coincides capable by either killer deterred just incorporates the funda- deserts and availability punishment. Finally, neither wrongdoers mental notion that should de- type inherently of killer is more amenable penal consequences serve the of their acts. rehabilitative efforts than the The other. forming gener- person incapable But a killer peace equally who Mils for be wrong al rea to do be said to mens cannot susceptible more to treatment than the deserve be blamed: “grapefruit killer,” depending on the source persons disordered can be [S]ome respective and cause of their delusions. justly only by system treated Thus, jurisprudential no moral or re- basis insanity. person has a A defense of type mains for one punishing per- who Mils because of a delusional belief that but not son the other. earth, produce will peace to do so Mils majority opinion The relies on the endorse- intentionally probably premeditatedly ment of approach section 76-2-305’s no and has defense but to a mur- “credible in the branches scientific and medi- Nevertheless, charge. Mlling der is fields,” citing position cal the American fundamentally irrational; person ap- is report. Medical in a Association I sub- incapable behaving parently rationally analysis mit that the contained in the AMA operates. the context which the delusion report basically wrong. is As one commen- person A who Mils because delusion- tary points out, AMA “[T]he believes that the necessary al belief it is to do so to legal defense confuses moral and intentionally own save one’s life Mils concepts concepts, with medical but it is will not succeed with defense of self- analysis AMA of tMs confu- person may guilty only That be defense. Morse, sion.” ex- commentary 791. homicide, negligent or recMess but such plains: responsive a verdict to the moral killing. person character Such correctly The AMA notes that free will properly negligent viewed as a or reck- explained cannot medical terms less killer who should convicted of a medically, entirely identified but this is homicide, type risk-creation but is rath- point. beside the Medical models cannot crazy ought er a actor who to be excused. provide responsibili- measure of “reliable immorality convicting such ty” are not meant to so. do degree some can be homicide avoided by claiming The AMA errs free will defense.... the basis for responsibility and that mental Morse, Stephen Excusing Crazy: J. necessarily disorder is somehow the antith- Reconsidered, Insanity 58 So.Cal. esis of free will. Free will is not Defense the basis added) (emphasis L.Rev. responsibility, per and mental disorder [hereinafter Morse]. se negate responsibility: does not irra- Likewise, tionality negate compulsion responsi- respect with notions of inca- bility. deterrence, argument ... pacitation and The AMA’s confused there no ration- delusions; entirely al fails to undercut the moral distinguishing basis for between basis strangles who for the or shoots what he defense because it does piece danger- recognize is a believes of fruit is less and deal with the true criteria human) (actually victim ous to his than one for excuse. See, example, Pugsley, exclusively doing justice. Robert A. Retributiv- A retributive Sentences, punishment incompa- A Basis inherently ism: Just Criminal Hofs- is not scheme for (1979): tra L.Rev. penal goals. tible with other enumerated In- deed, rehabilitative, deterrent, any accepted goals incidental commonly are four There Retribution, deterrence, preventive just punishment: effects which result from criminal However, rehabilitation, punishment certainly incapacitation/isolation. are welcome. However, only goals these contains additional social-utilitarian cannot retributivism a valid coherent, premise morally justify imposition philosophical upon which a the criminal sanc- organized system just punishment can tions. be (footnotes omitted). penal It is the Id. at built. sole rationale concerned added) (footnotes him m the we same (emphasis beliefs 'will understand

Id. 791-92 omitted). way our- fundamental that we understand everyday persons our fellow selves and opinion fails deal ade- majority The to agents only regard moral life. We as admittedly difficult distinc- quately the with beings way. in this we can understand mens rea to earlier —between tion referred required by describing the mental Moore, Psychiatry Law and M. given crime mens rea the definition of (1984), Kadish, Excusing H. in Sanford cited only the expressing principle that Crime, 257, 280 75 Cal.L.Rev. justifiably punished. morally culpable are on goes Kadish to observe: Professor asserts, example: opinion The why way, apparent in this it is “[S]een between legislature The has drawn line legal insanity excuse of is fundamental. No comprehend they do not those who if it blaming system would be coherent im- taking life and those who do. are a human regard agen- to posed blame without moral group first do not The offenders cy.”3 Id. killing they hurting an- know are These notions of fundamental coherence those in the second person, other while explain develop- and fairness the historical group group first makes no do know. The from its ment defense earliest group judgment, moral while second requirement to origins in the “evil motive” its actually killing are some- realizes usage as modern an affirmative doctrine of closer one therefore their actions come legislature’s effort to reverse excuse. criminality. realm history permits punishment (including im- sophistry. This is It is not considered penalty) persons cannot the death who enemy to kill an soldier in moral or criminal blameworthy. to That consti- said result time of or to kill in self defense war guarantees of funda- tutes breach harm another under extreme duress. protected by the due fairness excuse, recognizes, through doctrines of impo- clause of our state constitution and criminal, killings and a that some are punishment, in sition of cruel and unusual person suffering from believes delusions who punishment. sense that it is undeserved simply killing to be excused the law criminali- cannot closer to the realm of “come is, think, question I There little majority ty,” I understand in many present of its forms defense culpability mean some sort of or blamewor- subject requires abuse reform. I group” majority’s thiness. “second Morse, agree Professor concludes who judgment” killers makes more of “moral “thorough procedural substantive and point is that be- than the first. The whole just yield reforms can a limited but condition, they cause of their mental imperative of defense and that the moral incapable recognizing moral requires attempt that we reform.” presents choice Morse, meantime, at 806. the consti- itself: rationality pre- [Severely permit imposition diminished of crim- tution does not ... our responsibility no- on not mor-

clude[s] inal who are morally to be eligible ally legiti- tions of who is held responsible, and therefore not responsible depend ability our mately blameworthy, make for their actions. syllogisms regularly practical our rather agent if

for actions. One is a moral Only agent. if we can see

one a rational being as who acts to achieve

another one light of

some rational end in some rational ways Appeals been the case that the law has been loath 3. The United States Court acknowledged assign responsibility Tenth Circuit same fundamen- to an actor unable, Denny-Shaffer, principle tal States v. United he who was at the time or she commit- (10th Cir.1993): crime, F.3d ted to know either what was wrong. specific it done or that was formulation of the de- Whatever added). (emphasis history, throughout Id. at fense has been al-

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Herrera

Court Name: Utah Supreme Court

Date Published: Apr 21, 1995

Citation: 895 P.2d 359

Docket Number: 920209, 920265

Court Abbreviation: Utah