NCJ Number
37236
Journal
Suffolk University Law Review Volume: 10 Issue: 4 Dated: (SUMMER 1976) Pages: 1037-1063
Date Published
1976
Length
27 pages
Annotation
THIS NOTE EXAMINES DIVERGENT FEDERAL AND STATE POLICIES CONCERNING THE FORMULATION OF RULES OF BURDEN OF PROOF FOR THE SANITY ISSUE RAISED BY THE DEFENSE OF INSANITY.
Abstract
THE POLICIES OF VARIOUS JURISDICTIONS WHICH VIEW THE INSANITY DEFENSE AS A RESPONSE TO THE PRESUMPTION OF SANITY, AS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE, OR AS AN ELEMENT CRUCIAL TO A DETERMINATION OF GUILT OR INNOCENCE ARE DISCUSSED. SUPREME COURT DECISIONS DEALING WITH ALLOCATION OF BURDEN OF PROOF FOR PRESUMPTIONS AND OTHER AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES ARE ALSO REVIEWED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THESE SUPREME COURT RULINGS IMPLY THAT ONCE THE ISSUE OF INSANITY IS RAISED, DUE PROCESS REQUIRES THAT THE PROSECUTION SHOULD BEAR THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE DEFENDANT SANE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT IN BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL TRIALS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)