Relevance of Innocence - Proposition 8 and the Diminished Capacity Defense

• NCJ Number: 94404
• Journal: California Law Review Volume: 7 Dated: (1983) Pages: 1197-1215
• Author(s): F R Krausz
• Date Published: Unknown
• Length: 19 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

As part of criminal justice system reform in California, Proposition 8 abolished the 'diminished capacity defense.' Prohibiting the admission of evidence demonstrating diminished capacity violates the due process clause of the Constitution.

Abstract

The diminished capacity defense allows defendants to attempt to show that they could not have had, and therefore did not have, the mental state required for conviction of a crime. California limited use of the defense; if the cause of diminished capacity was other than mental illness, mental defect, or intoxication, the defendant would be barred from making a diminshed capacity defense. As long as the defendant's mental state is an element of the offense, the 14th amendment prohibits the exclusion of such evidence because exclusion violates the defendant's right to present reliable and relevant evidence critical to the defense, and it effectively reverses the presumption of innocence. This argument is rooted in California case law. Moreover, limiting the defense of diminished capacity to specific intent crimes violates the defendant's constitutional rights. By statute, mental state is an element of both specific and general intent crimes. Thus, the State must prove the defendant committed the crime with the requisite mental state, whether that mental state involves general or specific intent. Moreover, admitting evidence of diminshed capacity only when the source of the incapacity is mental illness, mental defect, or intoxication is inconsistent with due process. A constitutionally grounded diminished capacity defense can coexist with a strong penal system. Fears that underserving claims of incapacity will be successful can best be addressed on a case-by-case basis. Well-informed inquiry by the trial court and counsel into the relevance and reliability of the evidence, and clear jury instructions are recognized means, consistent with due process, of combatting jury error. Footnotes are included.