News Archive
Arizona's Insanity Statute to be Considered by U.S. Supreme Court
Dec 05, 2005
Although not a death penalty case, on December 5, 2005, the United States Supreme Court granted cert. in Clark v. Arizona. The issues presented and the Supreme Court's resolution could have a significant impact on death penalty litigation.
Mr. Clark was convicted of murdering a police officer in Flagstaff. Clark's defense at trial was that he was guilty except insane of either the charge of first degree murder or a lesser included offense.Alternatively, Clark's defense was that as a result of his mental illness he did not have the requisite necessary mental state for the charged offense. In other words, Clark asserted that due to his mental illness,he did not intentionally or knowingly kill a police officer. Accordingly, he was guilty of a less serious form of homicide. The trial court refused to consider expert testimony or any other evidence for this purpose of rebutting mens rea on the grounds that Arizona law prohibited it. The questions presented are as follows:
(1) Whether Arizona's insanity law, as set forth in A.R.S. § 13-502 (1996) and applied in this case,violated Petitioner's right to due process under the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment?
(2) Whether Arizona's blanket exclusion of evidence and refusal to consider mental disease or defect to rebut the state's evidence on the element of mens rea violated Petitioner's right to due process under the United States Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment?
Mr. Clark asserts that the Arizona Court of Appeals incorrectly held that A.R.S. §13-502(A) complies with due process by misinterpreting and misapplying the Supreme Court's precedent. Arizona's insanity law violates due process by prohibiting the consideration of evidence of the firmly rooted common law defense of insanity as set forth in the M'Naghten Rule. Arizona law further violates due process by precluding evidence of mental infirmity to rebut the state's evidence of mens rea. Petitioner was deprived of his fundamental rights to present a complete defense, to the presumption of innocence and to have the charges proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Mr. Clark sought cert. to challenge the limitation upon a state's power to abolish these defenses and to limit the introduction of exculpatory evidence.
David Goldberg of Flagstaff represents Mr. Clark. The Clark cert petition is available in the AACJ Document Library.