By Marie E. Matyjaszek
In mid-March of this year, the United States Supreme Court made a significant ruling regarding the use of insanity as a defense to a crime. In the case of James Kahler v Kansas, the high court ruled that the due process clause of the Constitution does not require a state to acquit a defendant who was found to be insane at the time of the crime.
Kahler was convicted of murdering his family and was sentenced to death in Kansas. His wife had left him, taking their children, causing Kahler great distress. While Kansas provides for mental disease or defect as a defense to a prosecution, it only allows for an acquittal if the defendant could not form the necessary mens rea. Kahler attempted to use his depression as proof he was unable to form the requisite intent to kill. He also introduced evidence in an attempt to reduce his sentence due to mental illness, but was unsuccessful.
Kahler appealed, challenging the fact that Kansas does not allow “an insanity defense that acquits a defendant who could not ‘distinguish right from wrong’ when committing his crime.” Kansas instead provides for cognitive incapacity, not moral incapacity, as a defense. The Supreme Court decided that in order for Kansas’ law to violate due process, it has to “‘[offend] some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.’” The opinion provided a fascinating look at the insanity defense throughout legal history.
The Court reiterated that it is paramount to allow individual states to determine what can be used as a defense to a criminal act, due to ever changing social policies, morals, and ethics. It is not the duty of the Supreme Court to dictate how the states choose to apply the insanity defense, and the Court noted that opinions on mental illness and criminal behavior vary so widely that it would be unwise for the law to require one rigid standard. Since the research and knowledge on mental conditions change over time, a firm standard for the law would not adapt to the fluidity of the psychiatric field.
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court in ruling that Kansas and all states have the power to choose how they handle insanity defenses. It seems particularly fitting that this ruling was issued at the beginning of the pandemic – if there was ever going to be a year in which to claim insanity, 2020 would be it.
——————
The author is an Attorney Referee at the Washtenaw County Friend
of the Court. Reach her at
matyjasz@hotmail.com.
- Posted December 17, 2020
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Insanity defense left up to states, high court rules
headlines Washtenaw County
- Videos aim to explain the court system
- MLaw student is presented with Wanda Nash Award
- Burgee recognized as a ‘Michigan Go To Lawyer’ for business transactions
- 5Qs: Michigan Law School Professor Eve Brensike Primus makes case for improving indigent defense with more public defenders
- From interrogation to liberation: A gay Chinese survivor’s journey to world of the American dream
headlines National
- This Los Angeles lawyer found her calling as a death doula
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Artificial intelligence tools for brief writing and analysis are a small firm litigator’s new best friend
- Baker McKenzie partner drops suit seeking IRS documents on partnership scrutiny
- Family members sue networks after learning of loved ones’ deaths by seeing bodies on TV
- Ex-BigLaw attorney once ‘consumed with remorse’ over $10M client theft sentenced in new scheme