 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
CLICK v. STATE12/20/1996
t. denied, 439 U.S. 823, 99 S.Ct. 91, 58 L.Ed.2d 115 (1978)
XXIV.
The appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a judgment of acquittal because, he says, the great weight of the evidence proved that he was insane at the time of the offense. We find that the appellant failed to satisfy the high burden necessary to warrant our reversal of the judgment.
The defense of insanity in Alabama is covered by statute.
"(a) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for any crime that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.
"(b) 'Severe mental disease or defect' does not include an abnormality manifested only be repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.
"(c) The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence."
§ 13A-3-1, Code of Alabama 1975.
"Every person over 14 years of age charged with a crime is presumed to be responsible for his acts, and the burden of proving that he is irresponsible is cast upon the accused. The defense of insanity in all criminal prosecutions shall be clearly proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury.
§ 15-16-2, Code of Alabama 1975.
Alabama caselaw has also set out other principles regarding the defense of insanity.
" '1. By statute, there is a presumption of sanity extending to all persons over the age of 14.
" '2. The defense of insanity is an affirmative defense. The burden of proving this defense rests upon the defendant and never shifts to the state.
" '3. The burden upon the defendant is to establish the issue of legal insanity by a preponderance of the evidence and to the reasonable satisfaction of the jury. [Now, under Ala. Code 1975 § 13A-3-1(c), " he defendant has the burden of proving the insanity defense by clear and convincing evidence."]
" '4. The question of insanity at the time of the commission of the crime is a matter to be determined by the jury from consideration of all the evidence.
" '5. In making its determination, the jury may reject all expert testimony though it is without conflict.
" '6. However, opinion testimony, even of experts must be weighed by the jury and may not be arbitrarily ignored.
" '. . . .
" 'The one exception to these rules is found in those cases where the proof of insanity is overwhelming and uncontradicted.
" ' "Cases of insanity may be so clear, the proof so strong and undisputed, that the jury should be instructed in like form." Boyle v. State, 229 Ala. 212, 222, 154 So. 575, 583 (1934).'
"Herbert v. State, 357 So.2d 683, 688-689 (Ala.Cr.App. ) (Bracketed material added [in Dixon]), cert. denied, 357 So.2d 690 (Ala. 1978.)"
Dixon v. State, 668 So.2d 65, 69-70 (Ala. Cr. App. 1994).
"Although the evidence may be offered only by the defense, and all tend to one conclusion, yet, in view of the presumption of sanity, if the evidence is inconclusive, and reasonable inferences may be drawn that the act was that of a sane man as defined by law, the affirmative charge (of insanity) should be refused."
Boyle v. State, 229 Ala. at 222, 154 So. at 583.
Additionally, a two-part showing must be made by the defendant to meet the § 13A-3-1(a) test of insanity. "First, he must establish that he suffered from a ser
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Alabama DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|