Tuesday, May 11, 2010

CCA ruling let juries hear about mental impairment, but not always from the mentally impaired

A couple of notable items from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals related to mental illness:

The search for diminished capacity in Texas law
First, from the Fort Worth Star Telegram, Martha Deller has the story, "
Appellate rulings sought to set guidelines for mental impairment defenses" (May 10), which opens:
No one knows for certain why a Tarrant County jury rejected a defense related to post-traumatic stress disorder in the murder trial of Marine veteran Eric Acevedo.

But legal experts agree that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals needs to rule more definitively whether evidence of mental impairment -- short of the tougher insanity defense -- is admissible in deciding guilt or innocence, and if so, when and how it can be used.

Texas hasn't allowed jurors to consider mental health issues, short of insanity, in determining a defendant's guilt. Some other states, though, allow juries to consider whether a mental affliction renders a person incapable of forming the intent to commit a crime.

Acevedo's attorney, Jim Lane, said that Texas needs a way to take into account the mental impairments suffered by an increasing number of combat veterans.

"Insanity has such a different meaning than combat PTSD," he said. "I'd hate to think that everyone coming home from Iraq is crazy, but there is diminished capacity for a combat veteran suffering from PTSD. There should be a niche for that."

Prosecutors fear that allowing mental health defenses could overwhelm the court system with such claims. But an official of the Vietnam Veterans of America says the opposite is true.

The story includes this description of recent CCA rulings on the topic:

Richardson attorney Lydia Brandt concedes that justices have not accepted the diminished-capacity defense per se.

She has argued appeals of lower court rulings disallowing testimony on mental impairment. In one case, the Court of Criminal Appeals in 2005 ruled for the first time that mental impairments can be introduced into evidence. But the justices also said that the trial judge in the case properly allowed the testimony but not the expert's opinion that the man lacked the capacity to intentionally commit the crime.

The court reaffirmed that opinion in 2008, reversing the conviction of a man who shot at police officers. The court said the trial judge erred in not allowing testimony that the man was mentally impaired and believed that the officers were Muslims.

Brandt said the law is still evolving through court opinions, which are making it increasingly clear that all types of mental impairment -- not just PTSD -- are admissible in criminal trials.

But she said she is not surprised that most juries do not accept the mental-impairment defense, just as they haven't accepted the insanity defense.

"I don't think people know what intent means," she said. "I don't think district attorneys know. They're turning it into a strict liability crime. He did it; therefore he intended to do it. That's why prosecutors are so adamantly against a diminished-capacity doctrine."

4 comments:

Veener said...

Slippery slope.

There is always SOMETHING mentally wrong with anyone that kills another person... it just isn't a normal rational thing to do. This is already accounted for in the law.

The way we do it now is fine. If you are crazy enough to use the insanity defense then go for it, otherwise save your depression/PTSD/ADHD/OCD/WTF mental issue in hopes of mitigating the severity of punishment.

Anonymous said...

I think that another link with information on Scott's case should be listed rather than the one that you chose. It doesn't present ALL of the information about the case and certainly not the most current information. Love your though blog!

Gritsforbreakfast said...

Thanks 4:44. Suggest an alternative and I'll change the link - it's just what I ran across with a quick search.

Anonymous said...

"Slippery slope.

There is always SOMETHING mentally wrong with anyone that kills another person... it just isn't a normal rational thing to do. This is already accounted for in the law.

The way we do it now is fine. If you are crazy enough to use the insanity defense then go for it, otherwise save your depression/PTSD/ADHD/OCD/WTF mental issue in hopes of mitigating the severity of punishment."

Obviously said by someone who has absolutely no understanding of mental illness.