FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256
Go to Volume 11 Table of Contents  -  Go to Chapter 256 Table of Contents

256.7 Mental, Medical Or Physical Impairment Of Defendant

    256.7.1 Mental Impairment: Miscellaneous Issues

    256.7.1.1 Mental Impairment To Negate Mental State Elements
    256.7.1.2 Mental Impairment To Negate Knowledge
    256.7.1.3 Low IQ (Intelligence) To Negate Knowledge
    256.7.1.4 Mental Disease Or Defect: Limitation To Specific Intent Only Violates Federal Constitution
    256.7.1.5 Expert Testimony Regarding Defendant's Formation Of Mental State
    256.7.1.6 Impact Of Abolition Of Diminished Capacity On Negation Of Mental Elements By Intoxication Or Mental Impairment

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256

RATIONALE: Without a defense theory instruction the jury may not consider whether the defendant's mental impairment negated any of the mental elements of the charged offense.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: Evidence of mental illness, defect, or disorder should be admissible to negate the required mens rea of the charged offense. (See e.g., State v. Breakiron (NJ 1987) 532 A2d 199, 213-14 [instruction on mental illness negating an element should be denied only where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, provides "no suggestion" that the defendant’s faculties were affected so as to render him incapable of entertaining the culpability required by the offense].)

    And, when such evidence has been presented, a specific defense theory instruction should be given on request. (See e.g., State v. Brechon (MN 1984) 352 NW2d 745, 750 and fn 2 [exclusion of evidence offered to negate an element of the charge implicates defendant’s federal constitutional right to present evidence]; People v. Saille (CA 1991) 54 C3d 1103, 1120 [2 CR2d 364] [right to request instruction pinpointing effect of intoxication on mental element of the charge]; cf. Martin v. Ohio (1987) 480 US 228, 233-34 [107 SCt 1098; 94 LEd2d 267] [defendant’s constitutional rights would have been implicated if State had precluded jury from considering evidence relevant to elements of the offense when deciding whether the State had proved those elements beyond a reasonable doubt].)

    See also FORECITE National™ 256.6.2.6 [Intoxication: When Combined With Mental Impairment].

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.3; 4.1].

Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses (West, 1984) § 64 [Mental Disease or Defect Negating an Offense Element] pp. 272-85.

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.13.4 [Mental Impairment To Negate Mens Rea].

See 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 5.03.

See also 9th Circuit Pattern Model Instructions- Criminal 6.8.

[Cf. CALIFORNIA JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL, CALJIC 3.32 [Evidence of Mental Disease--Received for United Purpose] (West, 6th Ed. 1996).]

    If, after considering all of the evidence, including defendant's alleged mental impairments[s], you have a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that ____________  [insert language as to the defendant having the culpable mental state involved], you must vote to find the defendant not guilty.

[Cf. MISSOURI APPROVED INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL, MAI-CR 3d 308.03 [Mental Disease or Defect Negating Culpable Mental State] p. 308-11 (Missouri Supreme Court Publications, 3rd ed. 1987).]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256

RATIONALE: Without a defense theory instruction the jury may not consider the defendant's mental impairment in deciding whether the prosecution proved any knowledge elements of the charged offense.

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES: See FORECITE National™ 250.1 [Grounds For Instruction On Defense Theory]; see also FORECITE National™ 256.6.1.15 [Intoxication Or Mental Impairment: Negation Of Knowledge Element].

FEDERALIZATION: To federalize this request, click here. [Constitutional Macro 2.3; 4.1].

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.13.4 [Mental Impairment To Negate Mens Rea].

See 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 5.03.

See also 9th Circuit Pattern Model Instructions- Criminal 6.8.

    If, after considering all of the evidence, including defendant's alleged mental impairment[s], you have a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that ____________  (insert language as to the defendant having the culpable mental state involved), you must vote to find the defendant not guilty.

[Cf. MISSOURI APPROVED INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL, MAI-CR 3d 308.03 [Mental Disease or Defect Negating Culpable Mental State] p. 308-11 (Missouri Supreme Court Publications, 3rd ed. 1987).]

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256

PRACTICE NOTE: The defendant’s mental impairment (e.g., low I.Q.) is relevant and should not be excluded when offered to support an inference that the defendant did not have the requisite knowledge for the charged offense. (See U.S. v. Hayden (3rd Cir. 1995) 64 F3d 126, 134 [low I.Q. to show defendant was unaware of pending felony charge].)

    See also FORECITE National™ 253.4.10.6 [Self Defense: Expert Testimony Regarding Defendant’s Mental Retardation].

    See also FORECITE National™ 254.1.1.5 [Duress/Coercion: Evidence Of Defendant's Intelligence Level To Show Inability To Resist Acts Or Threats Of Duress].

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.13.4 [Mental Impairment To Negate Mens Rea].

See 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 5.03.

See also 9th Circuit Pattern Model Instructions- Criminal 6.8.

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256

PRACTICE NOTE: Preclusion of evidence and/or instruction on nonspecific intent elements of the charge may be subject to constitutional challenge. (See Robinson, Criminal Law Defenses (West, 1984) § 64(c) p. 280; see laso FORECITE National™ 250.1.4 [Constitutional Rights To Due Process, Trial By Jury And Compulsory Process As Grounds For Defense Theory Instruction].)

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.13.4 [Mental Impairment To Negate Mens Rea].

See 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 5.03.

See also 9th Circuit Pattern Model Instructions- Criminal 6.8.

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

 VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256

PRACTICE NOTE: The Supreme Court has recognized that expert testimony regarding a defendant's mental health is often necessary to help the jury understand the issues. (Ake v. Oklahoma (1985) 470 US 68, 82-86 [105 SCt 1087; 84 LEd2d 53].) Similarly, regarding the functions of an independent psychiatric expert, the Seventh Circuit stated that "the expert can coherently present to the jury his or her observations of the defendant, as well as his or her understanding of the defendant's mental history, and explain to the jury how those observations and that history are relevant to the defendant's mental condition." (U.S. v. Fazzini (7th Cir. 1989) 871 F2d 635, 637; United States v. Reno (7th Cir. 1993) 992 F2d 739, 742 ["An expert can help the jury understand mental illness and its symptoms and effects"]; see also U.S. v. Madoch (N.D.Ill. 1996) 935 FSupp 965, 970.) For example, People v. Nunn (CA 1996) 50 CA4th 1357, 1365 [58 CR2d 294] held that expert testimony is admissible concerning factors which may be relevant to whether a defendant harbored a required mental state or intent at the time he or she acted.

    However, the expert may not express an opinion regarding the ultimate question of whether the defendant actually formed the required mental state or specific intent. (See e.g., People v. Czahara (CA 1988) 203 CA3d 1468, 1477 [250 CR 836]; State v. Provost (MN 1992) 490 NW2d 93, 103-04.) It has been held that "legitimate legislative determination[s] on the admissibility of certain classes of evidence do not deprive a defendant of his or her right to present a defense." (California v. Whitler (CA 1985) 171 CA3d 337, 340 [214 CR 610]; California v. McCowan (CA 1986) 182 CA3d 1, 13 [227 CR 23]; California v. Jackson (CA 1984) 152 CA 3d 961, 967-69 [199 CR 848].)

    See also FORECITE National™ 29.1.6 [Expert Witness: Ultimate Issue Rule Abolished In Federal System].

See Capital Punishment Handbook [2.5a. Psychiatric And Other Expert Assistance: General Principles And Authorities].

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.5.8 [Expert Testimony/Scientific Evidence].

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.13.4 [Mental Impairment To Negate Mens Rea].

See 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 5.03.

See also 9th Circuit Pattern Model Instructions- Criminal 6.8.

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 11 - CHAPTER 256

PRACTICE NOTE: Although 18 USC 17 intended to prohibit the complete defense of diminished capacity, "Congress distinguished those defenses from the use of evidence of mental abnormality to negate specific intent or any other mens rea, which are elements of the offense." (U.S. v. Bennett (3rd Cir. 1998) 161 F3d 171, 184; see also People v. Saille (CA 1991) 54 C3d 1103, 1112, 1118 [2 CR2d 364] [California abolition of "diminished capacity" did not preclude evidence of intoxication as evidence of "diminished actuality" to negate the existence of a required mental state].)

    See also FORECITE National™ 256.6.1.2 [Availability Of Voluntary Intoxication As Defense: Specific/General Intent Analysis].

    See also FORECITE National™ 256.6.1.15 [Intoxication Or Mental Impairment: Negation Of Knowledge Element].

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.13.4 [Mental Impairment To Negate Mens Rea].

See 1st Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions - Criminal 5.03.

See also 9th Circuit Pattern Model Instructions - Criminal 6.8.