clark arizona argued april decided june petitioner clark charged murder arizona statute prohibiting nten tionally knowing ly killing police officer line duty bench trial clark contest shot officer officer died relied undisputed paranoid schizophrenia time incident deny specific intent shoot officer knowledge accordingly prosecutor offered circumstantial evidence clark knew victim police officer testimony indicating clark previously stated wanted shoot police lured victim scene kill presenting defense case clark claimed mental illness sought introduce two purposes first raised affirmative defense insanity putting burden prove clear convincing evidence words another state statute time crime afflicted mental disease defect severity know criminal act wrong second aimed rebut prosecution evidence requisite mens rea acted intentionally knowingly kill officer ruling clark rely evidence bearing insanity dispute mens rea trial cited arizona decision state mott refused allow psychiatric testimony negate specific intent held arizona allow evidence mental disorder short insanity negate mens rea element crime insanity clark presented lay testimony describing increasingly bizarre behavior year shooting lay expert testimony indicated among things clark thought aliens impersonating government agents trying kill bullets way stop psychiatrist testified clark suffering paranoid schizophrenia delusions aliens killed officer concluded clark incapable luring officer understanding right wrong thus insane time killing rebuttal state psychiatrist gave opinion clark paranoid schizophrenia keep appreciating wrongfulness conduct shooting judge issued murder verdict finding light facts crime expert evaluations clark actions behavior shooting observations knew clark established schizophrenia distorted perception reality severely know actions wrong clark moved vacate judgment life sentence arguing among things arizona insanity test mott rule violate due process claimed arizona legislature impermissibly narrowed insanity standard eliminated first two parts traditional insanity test trial denied motion affirming arizona appeals held among things state insanity scheme consistent due process read mott barring trial consideration evidence clark mental illness capacity directly element mens rea held due process prohibit arizona use insanity test stated solely terms capacity tell whether act charged crime right wrong pp first part landmark english rule case asks cognitive capacity whether mental defect leaves defendant unable understand second part presents ostensibly alternative basis recognizing defense insanity understood lack moral capacity whether mental disease defect leaves defendant unable understand action wrong although arizona legislature first adopted full statement later dropped cognitive incapacity part current arizona law defendant adjudged insane unless demonstrates time crime afflicted mental disease defect severity know criminal act wrong pp clark insists test represents minimum government must provide argues eliminating first part principle justice rooted traditions conscience people ranked fundamental patterson new york claim entails light burden clark carry history shows deference elevate formula level fundamental principle limit traditional recognition state capacity define crimes defenses see patterson supra even cursory examination traditional approaches insanity reveals significant differences among four traditional strains variously combined yield diversity american standards although federal government adopted recognizable versions test components adopted variety standards based part one four variants alternatives multiplied variations prescribed insanity verdict varied background makes clear particular formulation evolved baseline due process insanity rule like conceptualization criminal offenses substantially open state choice pp arizona abbreviation statement raise proper claim constitutional minimum shortchanged although arizona former statement full rule constitutionally adequate abbreviated rule less cognitive incapacity relevant statement extended formulation evidence going cognitive incapacity significance short form long though clark correct applying moral incapacity test telling right wrong necessarily require evaluation defendant cognitive capacity appreciate nature quality acts charged argument fails recognize cognitive incapacity enough demonstrate moral incapacity evidence bearing whether defendant knew nature quality actions relevant admissible practical terms defendant know acted known performing wrongful act charged crime arizona appeals acknowledged much case clark adopted analysis trial apparently agreed admitted cognitive incapacity evidence consideration state moral incapacity formulation clark point evidence bearing insanity excluded pp arizona mott rule violate due process pp mott held testimony professional psychologist psychiatrist defendant mental incapacity owing mental disease defect admissible considered bearing insanity defense considered element mens rea three categories evidence potentially bear mens rea everyday observation evidence either lay expert witnesses clark said may support professional diagnoses disease event kind evidence relevant show clark mind fired gun evidence typically professional psychologists psychiatrists based factual reports professional observations tests clark mental disease features described witness capacity evidence typically experts clark capacity cognition moral judgment ultimately also capacity form mens rea mott imposed restriction considering evidence first sort applies latter two although trial seems applied mott restriction three categories evidence clark offered purpose showing called inability form required mens rea objection mott application turn distinction lay expert witnesses kinds testimony competent present rather issue clark claim mott rule violates due process pp clark mott challenge turns application presumption innocence criminal cases presumption sanity principle criminal defendant entitled present relevant favorable evidence element offense charged pp presumption innocence defendant innocent unless government proves beyond reasonable doubt element offense changed including mental element mens rea modern tendency describe mens rea required prove particular offenses specific terms shown arizona statute requiring state prove acting kill victim clark intended kill law enforcement officer duty knew victim officer duty applied mens rea every element force presumption innocence measured force showing needed overcome proof beyond reasonable doubt defendant state mind fact charge see winship pp ii presumption sanity dispenses requirement government include element every criminal charge allegation defendant capacity form mens rea necessary conviction criminal responsibility unlike presumption innocence presumption sanity force varies across many state federal jurisdictions prior law recognized considerable leeway part legislative branch defining presumption strength kind evidence degree persuasiveness necessary overcome see fisher two points sanity capacity presumption may placed issue first state may allow defendant introduce factfinder consider evidence mental disease incapacity bearing government burden show mens rea second sanity presumption force may tested consideration insanity defense raised defendant insanity rules like variants noted attempts define indicate kinds mental differences overcome presumption sanity capacity therefore excuse defendant customary criminal responsibility see jones even prosecution otherwise overcome presumption innocence convincing factfinder elements charged beyond reasonable doubt burden defendant raising insanity issue must carry defines strength sanity presumption state may example place burden persuasion defendant prove insanity applicable law defines whether preponderance evidence convincing degree see leland oregon pp iii defendant due process right present evidence favorable element must proven convict evidence tending show defendant suffers mental disease lacks capacity form mens rea relevant rebut evidence fact form required mens rea time question thus clark claims right require factfinder case consider testimony mental illness incapacity directly weighing persuasiveness evidence tending show mens rea prosecution burden prove however right introduce relevant evidence curtailed good reason example trial judges may exclude evidence probative value outweighed certain factors unfair prejudice confusion issues potential mislead jury holmes south carolina evidence may kept entirely consideration may subject limitation arizona claims power impose state law capacity evidence may considered bearing insanity defense avail defendant persuasive enough satisfy defendant burden defined terms defense evidence thus channeled restricted one issue excluded entirely question whether reasons requiring channeled restricted satisfy due process fundamental fairness standard pp reasons supporting arizona rule satisfy due process pp first reason arizona authority define presumption sanity capacity responsibility choosing insanity definition placing burden persuasion criminal defendants claiming incapacity excuse consistent due process state require defendants bear burden see leland supra clark object arizona decision require persuasion clear convincing degree presumption sanity normal responsibility overcome state authority practice well theory must able deny defendant opportunity displace sanity presumption easily addressing different issue criminal trial yet opportunity available expert testimony mental disease incapacity considered whatever factfinder might think worth mens rea issue sanity presumption strong evidence factfinder accept enough raise reasonable doubt mens rea reasonable doubt found acquittal required standards established insanity defense go boards counts due process simply state wishing avoid second avenue exploring capacity less stringent defendant good reason confining consideration mental disease incapacity evidence insanity defense pp ii arizona rule also serves avoid confusion misunderstanding part jurors controversial character categories mental disease potential evidence mislead danger according greater certainty capacity evidence experts claim give rise risks may reasonably hedged channeling consideration evidence insanity issue like arizona defendant burden persuasion first diagnosis may mask vigorous debate within psychiatric profession contours mental disease see jones supra though evidence certainly condemned wholesale consequence professional ferment general caution treating psychological classifications predicates excusing otherwise criminal conduct next potential evidence mislead jurors factfinders power kind evidence suggest defendant suffering recognized mental disease lacks cognitive moral volitional capacity may sound conclusion even category mental disease broadly accepted assignment defendant behavior category uncontroversial classification may suggest something significant defendant capacity fact classification tells little nothing defendant ability form mens rea exercise cognitive moral volitional capacities define legal sanity limits utility professional disease diagnosis evident dispute two testifying experts case agree clark schizophrenic reach opposite conclusions whether mental disease left bereft cognitive moral capacity finally particular risks inherent opinions experts supplement classifications opinions incapacity whether mental disease rendered particular defendant incapable cognition necessary moral judgment mens rea otherwise incapable understanding wrongfulness conduct charged unlike observational evidence bearing mens rea capacity evidence consists judgment judgment fraught multiple perils although capacity judgments may given utmost good faith potentially tenuous character indicated candor defense expert case testified clark lacked capacity appreciate circumstances realistically understand wrongfulness admitted one knew exactly clark mind time shooting even expert confident understanding mind reliable judgment addressing basic categories capacity requires leap concepts psychology devised thinking treatment concepts legal sanity devised thinking criminal responsibility pp reasons also cause claim channeling evidence metal disease capacity offends justice rooted traditions conscience people ranked fundamental patterson supra affirmed souter delivered opinion roberts scalia thomas alito joined breyer joined except parts ultimate disposition breyer filed opinion concurring part dissenting part kennedy filed dissenting opinion stevens ginsburg joined eric michael clark petitioner arizona writ certiorari appeals arizona division one june justice souter delivered opinion case presents two questions whether due process prohibits arizona use insanity test stated solely terms capacity tell whether act charged crime right wrong whether arizona violates due process restricting consideration defense evidence mental illness incapacity bearing claim insanity thus eliminating significance directly issue mental element crime charged known legal shorthand mens rea guilty mind hold violation due process either instance early hours june officer jeffrey moritz flagstaff police responded uniform complaints pickup truck loud music blaring circling residential block located truck officer turned emergency lights siren marked patrol car prompted petitioner eric clark truck driver pull officer moritz got patrol car told clark stay less minute later clark shot officer died soon calling police dispatcher help clark ran away foot arrested later day gunpowder residue hands gun killed officer found nearby stuffed knit cap clark charged murder rev stat ann west supp intentionally knowingly killing law enforcement officer line march clark found incompetent stand trial committed state hospital treatment two years later trial found competence restored ordered tried clark waived right jury case heard trial clark contest shooting death relied undisputed paranoid schizophrenia time incident denying specific intent shoot law enforcement officer knowledge required statute accordingly prosecutor offered circumstantial evidence clark knew officer moritz law enforcement officer evidence showed officer uniform time caught clark marked police car emergency lights siren going clark acknowledged symbols police authority stopped testimony prosecution indicated clark intentionally lured officer scene kill told people weeks incident wanted shoot police officers close state evidence trial denied clark motion judgment acquittal failure prove intent kill law enforcement officer knowledge officer moritz law enforcement officer presenting defense case clark claimed mental illness sought introduce two purposes first raised affirmative defense insanity putting burden prove clear convincing evidence west time commission criminal act afflicted mental disease defect severity know criminal act wrong second aimed rebut prosecution evidence requisite mens rea acted intentionally knowingly kill law enforcement officer see record cr super doc hereinafter record trial ruled clark rely evidence bearing insanity dispute mens rea cited state mott en banc cert denied refused allow psychiatric testimony negate specific intent held arizona allow evidence defendant mental disorder short insanity negate mens rea element crime insanity clark presented testimony classmates school officials family describing increasingly bizarre behavior year shooting witnesses testified example paranoid delusions led clark rig fishing line beads wind chimes home alert intrusion invaders keep bird automobile warn airborne poison lay expert testimony clark thought flagstaff populated aliens impersonating government agents aliens trying kill bullets way stop psychiatrist testified clark suffering paranoid schizophrenia delusions aliens killed officer moritz concluded clark incapable luring officer understanding right wrong thus insane time killing rebuttal psychiatrist state gave opinion clark paranoid schizophrenia keep appreciating wrongfulness conduct shown actions shooting circling residential block music blaring lure police intervene evading police shooting hiding gun close defense case consisting evidence bearing mental illness trial denied clark renewed motion directed verdict grounded failure prosecution show clark knew victim police judge issued special verdict murder expressly finding clark shot caused death officer moritz beyond reasonable doubt clark shown insane time judge noted though clark indisputably afflicted paranoid schizophrenia time shooting mental illness distort perception reality severely know actions wrong app conclusion judge expressly relied facts crime evaluations experts clark actions behavior shooting observations knew clark sentence life imprisonment without possibility release years clark moved vacate judgment sentence arguing among things arizona insanity test mott rule violate due process insanity standard clark claimed argued earlier arizona legislature impermissibly narrowed standard eliminated first part insanity test announced case cl fin eng denied motion appeals arizona affirmed clark conviction treating conclusion sanity supported enough evidence withstand review abuse discretion holding state insanity scheme consistent due process app latter appeals reasoned constitutional requirement recognize insanity defense bounds left state discretion beyond appellate followed mott reading barring trial consideration evidence clark mental illness capacity directly element mens rea arizona denied review granted certiorari decide whether due process prohibits arizona thus narrowing insanity test excluding evidence mental illness incapacity due mental illness rebut evidence requisite criminal intent affirm ii clark first says arizona definition insanity fragment victorian standard derives violates due process landmark english rule case cl fin eng jurors told establish defence ground insanity must clearly proved time committing act party accused laboring defect reason disease mind know nature quality act know know wrong cl eng first part asks cognitive capacity whether mental defect leaves defendant unable understand second part presents ostensibly alternative basis recognizing defense insanity understood lack moral capacity whether mental disease defect leaves defendant unable understand action wrong arizona legislature first codified insanity rule adopted full statement subject modifications details matter person responsible criminal conduct time conduct person suffering mental disease defect know nature quality act person know person know wrong rev stat ann west legislature dropped cognitive incapacity part leaving moral incapacity nub stated definition see sess laws ch current arizona law defendant adjudged insane unless demonstrates time commission criminal act afflicted mental disease defect severity know criminal act wrong rev stat ann west clark challenges amendment excising express reference cognitive incapacity element insists test represents minimum government must provide recognizing alternative criminal responsibility grounds mental illness defect argues elimination reference nature quality principle justice rooted traditions conscience people ranked fundamental patterson new york quoting speiser randall see also leland oregon claim entails light burden see montana egelhoff plurality opinion clark carry history shows deference elevate formula level fundamental principle limit traditional recognition state capacity define crimes defenses see patterson supra see also foucha louisiana kennedy dissenting even cursory examination traditional approaches insanity reveals significant differences among four traditional strains variously combined yield diversity american standards main variants cognitive incapacity moral incapacity volitional incapacity first two emanate alternatives stated rule volitional incapacity test surfaced two centuries ago first asks whether person lacking volition due mental defect illness controlled actions test used early simply asks whether person action product mental disease seventeen federal government adopted recognizable version test cognitive incapacity moral incapacity one state adopted cognitive incapacity including arizona adopted moral incapacity test fourteen jurisdictions inspired model penal place amalgam volitional incapacity test variant moral incapacity test satisfaction either generally showing defendant substantial lack capacity enough three combine full test volitional incapacity new hampshire alone stands alternatives multiplied variations prescribed insanity verdict significant number jurisdictions supplement traditional guilty reason insanity verdict alternative guilty mentally finally four affirmative insanity though one provides guilty mentally ill four like number others recognize affirmative insanity defense allow consideration evidence mental illness directly element mens rea defining varied background clear particular formulation evolved baseline due process insanity rule like conceptualization criminal offenses substantially open state choice indeed legitimacy choice obvious one considers interplay legal concepts mental illness deficiency required insanity defense medical concepts mental abnormality influence expert opinion testimony psychologists psychiatrists commonly introduced support contest insanity claims medical definitions devised justify treatment like legal ones devised excuse conventional criminal responsibility subject flux disagreement see infra cf leland due process violation adopting standard rather test scientific knowledge require otherwise choice test matter policy fodder reasonable debate cognate legal medical tests due process imposes single canonical formulation legal insanity arizona abbreviation statement raise proper claim constitutional minimum shortchanged clark argument course assumes arizona former statement rule express alternative cognitive incapacity constitutionally adequate agree abbreviated rule less cognitive incapacity relevant statement extended formulation evidence going cognitive incapacity significance short form long though clark correct application moral incapacity test telling right wrong necessarily require evaluation defendant cognitive capacity appreciate nature quality acts charged see brief petitioner argument fails recognize cognitive incapacity enough demonstrate moral incapacity cognitive incapacity words sufficient condition establishing defense insanity albeit necessary one defendant therefore make moral incapacity demonstrating cognitive incapacity evidence bearing whether defendant knew nature quality actions relevant admissible practical terms defendant know acted known performing wrongful act charged indeed rule still effect arizona held jury instruction insanity containing moral incapacity part full recitation cognitive incapacity part fine cognitive incapacity part might adding nothing requirement accused know act wrong state chavez quoting goldstein insanity defense appeals arizona acknowledged much case see app difficult imagine defendant appreciate quality act committed reasonably able perceive act thus aligned understanding cognitively incapacitated subset morally incapacitated within meaning standard rule see goldstein supra situations accused know nature quality act broad sense know wrong matter construction given lafave substantive criminal law ed many courts feel knowledge nature quality act mere equivalent ability know act wrong citing cases defendant know nature quality act quite obviously know act true without regard interpretation given word cf gerber criminal law arizona ed clark indeed adopted analysis trial clark know shooting police officer believed shoot shot even though belief based reality establish know wrong record doc trial apparently agreed judge admitted clark evidence cognitive incapacity consideration state moral incapacity formulation clark point evidence bearing insanity excluded psychiatric expert number lay witnesses testified delusions evidence tended support description clark lacking capacity understand police officer human doubt trial judge considered evidence going issue cognitive capacity finding insanity proven said clark mental illness distort perception reality severely know actions wrong app satisfied neither theory practice arizona abridgment insanity formulation deprive clark due process iii clark second claim due process violation challenges rule adopted arizona state mott en banc cert denied case ruled admissibility testimony psychologist offered show defendant suffered battered women syndrome therefore lacked capacity form mens rea crime charged opinion variously referred testimony issue psychological testimony expert testimony implicitly equated expert psychiatric evidence internal quotation marks omitted psychiatric testimony state held testimony professional psychologist psychiatrist defendant mental incapacity owing mental disease defect admissible considered bearing insanity defense evidence considered element mens rea state must show defendant mental state intent understanding performed act charged see understanding clark claim requires attention categories evidence potential bearing mens rea first observation evidence everyday sense testimony observed clark heard said category also include testimony expert witness might give clark tendency think certain way behavioral characteristics evidence may support professional diagnosis mental disease event kind evidence relevant show fact clark mind fired gun observation evidence record covers clark behavior home friends expressions belief around time killing aliens inhabiting bodies local people including government agents driving around neighborhood police arrived contrary dissent characterization see post opinion kennedy observation evidence presented either lay expert witnesses second evidence form opinion testimony clark suffered mental disease features described witness true evidence characteristically comes professional psychologists psychiatrists testify expert witnesses base opinions part examination defendant usually conducted events question thrust evidence based factual reports professional observations tests clark psychotic time question condition fell within category schizophrenia third evidence refer capacity evidence defendant capacity cognition moral judgment ultimately also capacity form mens rea opinion evidence usually testimony came experts concentrated specific details mental condition make difference sanity insanity arizona respective testimony details experts disagreed defense expert gave opinion symptoms effects disease clark case included inability appreciate nature action tell wrong whereas state psychiatrist view clark schizophrenic still sufficiently able appreciate reality shooting officer know wrong caveat categories order attempt identify different kinds testimony offered case terms explicit implicit distinctions made mott say categories goes cores however margins exact limits thus worked arizona law come attention case neither courts rulings counsel objections invoked required precision applying mott rule evidentiary treatment explain necessarily decision address core issues leaving cases due process claims may raised treatment evidence whose categorization subject dispute clear mott imposed restriction considering evidence first sort observation evidence read mott restriction apply rather evidence addressing two issues testimony characteristically comes psychologists psychiatrists qualified give opinions expert witnesses evidence whether time crime defendant suffered mental disease defect schizophrenia capacity evidence whether disease defect left incapable performing experiencing mental process defined necessary sanity appreciating nature quality act knowing wrong mott careful distinguish kind opinion evidence observation evidence generally even observation evidence expert witness might offer descriptions defendant tendency think certain way behavioral characteristics arizona made clear sort testimony perfectly admissible rebut prosecution evidence mens rea thus opinion testimony going mental defect disease effect cognitive moral ties sanity depends arizona rule restricted case trial seems applied mott restriction evidence offered clark purpose showing called inability form required mens rea see record doc pp intent kill police officer duty understanding engaging act killing officer see rev stat ann west supp thus trial restriction may covered capacity evidence defined also observation evidence offered lay expert witnesses described clark unusual behavior clark objection application mott rule however turn distinction lay expert witnesses kinds testimony competent albeit limited disagreement dissent scope claim error properly us start matters agreement members agree clark general attack mott rule covers application confining consideration capacity evidence insanity defense practical terms agreement issues presented extends second point justice kennedy understands clark raised objection confining evidence insanity issue sees clark effect claimed dealing issue mens rea trial judge considered expert testimony may characteristically go mind schizophrenic judge considered fact clark mind time shooting see post dissenting opinion opinion clark paranoid schizophrenia opinion shared experts prosecution defense bears efforts determine factual matter whether knew killing police officer thus understands defense counsel claimed right rebut state mens rea demonstration testimony schizophrenics may hallucinate voices sounds characteristic failure distinguish content imagination people perceive exterior reality important clear supposed objection dealing testimony based observation clark showing auditory hallucinations driving around failed fact appreciate objective reality shot objection went use testimony schizophrenics clark particular might dispute clearly clark raised objection doubt objection falls within general challenge mott rule understand mott meant confine insanity defense consideration characteristic behavior associated mental disease see contrasting state christensen state gonzales therefore assume argument clark raised claim consider due process challenge mott rule point disagree dissent however clark apprise arizona courts believed trial judge erroneously limited consideration observation evidence whether lay witnesses like clark mother possibly expert witnesses observed sort evidence covered mott restriction confining insanity issue erroneous application mott matter arizona law following reasons think objection made way arizona courts understood issue us think issue properly us challenge mott due process grounds comprising objections limits use capacity evidence clear trial judge intended apply mott ecognizing much evidence defense going submitting fact far know insanity also arguably made along lines mott issue form intent capacity intent going let go ahead get stuff goes insanity issue front jury end let make offer proof intent mott issues still think decision law land state app point trial judge specify particular evidence refused consider mens rea issue defense counsel specify observation particular evidence claimed admissible wrongly excluded issue mens rea produce clearer ruling evidence restricted authority mott made offer proof trial although brief arizona appeals stated one point inconsistent mott consider nonexpert evidence indicating mental illness issue mens rea argued trial judge failed appellant opening brief etc ct app pp hereinafter appellant opening brief specific see ruling mott trial refusal consider whether result suffering paranoid schizophrenia clark formulate mens rea necessary first degree murder violated right due process similarly read arizona appeals done nothing rely mott reject claim due process forbids restricting evidence bearing bility orm ens ea app emphasis original capacity evidence insanity determination see failure state courts raise clear claim observation evidence see appellant opening brief reflected material addressed us see brief petitioner question presented following statement position couched similarly worded general terms eric denied due process trial refused consider evidence severe mental illness determining factually whether prosecution proved mental elements crime charged counsel made certain beyond doubt reply brief eric point always attack rule state mott courts held applicable binding mott announced categorical use psychological testimony challenge mens rea element crime upheld rule federal due process challenge reply brief petitioner citations omitted explanation supported statements clark briefs state appeals replete consistently maintained claim error limit evidence mental illness incapacity bearing insanity defense excluding consideration element mens rea see appellant opening brief brief petitioner sum trial ruling uncertain edges may restricted observation evidence admissible mens rea insanity defense alone due process challenge restriction observation evidence measure neither pressed passed upon arizona appeals consider see kentucky stincer illinois gates know consider clark claim mott denied due process preclude eric contending factual inferences mental necessary elements crime charged drawn behavior explainable instead manifestation chronic paranoid schizophrenia brief petitioner emphasis original consider claim clark otherwise puts arizona prohibition capacity evidence criminal defendants violates due process ibid clark argument mott rule violates fourteenth amendment guarantee due process turns application presumption innocence criminal cases presumption sanity principle criminal defendant entitled present relevant favorable evidence element offense charged first presumption defendant innocent unless government proves beyond reasonable doubt element offense charged see patterson including mental element mens rea last century mens rea required proven particular offenses often described general terms like malice see eckart blackstone commentaries unwarrantable act without vicious crime modern tendency toward specific descriptions shown arizona statute defining murder charged clark state prove acting kill victim clark intended kill law enforcement officer duty knew victim officer duty see generally gardner mens rea enigma observations role motive criminal law past present utah rev applied mens rea every element force presumption innocence measured force showing needed overcome proof beyond reasonable doubt defendant state mind fact charge see winship supra presumption sanity equally universal variety least presumption defendant capacity form mens rea necessary verdict guilt consequent criminal responsibility see leland case cl eng see generally lafave substantive criminal law presumption dispenses requirement government part include element every criminal charge allegation defendant force presumption like presumption innocence measured quantum evidence necessary overcome unlike presumption innocence however force presumption sanity varies across many state federal jurisdictions prior law recognized considerable leeway part legislative branch defining presumption strength kind evidence degree persuasiveness necessary overcome see fisher two points sanity capacity presumption may placed issue first state may allow defendant introduce factfinder consider evidence mental disease incapacity bearing government burden show mens rea see state perez evidence showing incapacity form guilty state mind example qualifies probative force evidence considered alone indicates defendant actually formed guilty state mind shown defendant mental disease thinks blond people robots intended kill person shot man blond hair even though seemed act like man shooting another jurisdictions allow capacity evidence considered par relevant evidence deciding whether prosecution proven mens rea beyond reasonable doubt evidence mental disease incapacity need support factfinder regards reasonable doubt capacity form actual formation mens rea order require acquittal charge thus strength presumption sanity greater strength evidence abnormal mental state factfinder thinks enough raise reasonable doubt second point force presumption sanity may tested consideration defense insanity raised defendant insanity rules like variants discussed part ii supra attempts define least indicate kinds mental differences overcome presumption sanity capacity therefore excuse defendant customary criminal responsibility see jones brennan dissenting hermann insanity defense philosophical historical legal perspectives central significance insanity defense separation nonblameworthy blameworthy offenders even prosecution otherwise overcome presumption innocence convincing factfinder elements charged beyond reasonable doubt burden must carried defendant raises insanity issue defines strength sanity presumption state may provide example whenever defendant raises claim insanity quantum credible evidence presumption disappears government must prove sanity specified degree certainty whether beyond reasonable doubt something less see commonwealth keita mass jurisdiction may place burden persuasion defendant prove insanity applicable law defines whether preponderance evidence convincing degree see rev stat ann west leland case defendant burden defines presumption sanity whether burden burst bubble show something third principle implicated clark argument defendant right matter simple due process present evidence favorable element must proven convict already noted evidence tending show defendant suffers mental disease lacks capacity form mens rea relevant rebut evidence fact form required mens rea time question reason clark claims right require factfinder case consider testimony mental illness incapacity directly weighing persuasiveness evidence tending show mens rea prosecution burden prove clark recognizes however right introduce relevant evidence curtailed good reason constitution prohibits exclusion defense evidence rules serve legitimate purpose disproportionate ends asserted promote rules evidence permit trial judges exclude evidence probative value outweighed certain factors unfair prejudice confusion issues potential mislead jury holmes south carolina slip see crane kentucky permitting exclusion evidence poses undue risk prejudice confusion quoting delaware van arsdall see also egelhoff chambers mississippi evidence may kept entirely consideration may subject limitation arizona claims power impose state law says evidence mental disease incapacity may introduced considered sufficiently forceful satisfy defendant burden proof insanity rule displace presumption sanity excuse criminal responsibility capacity evidence may considered bearing insanity defense avail defendant persuasive enough satisfy defendant burden defined terms defense capacity evidence thus channeled restricted one issue given effect defendant carries burden convince factfinder insanity evidence excluded entirely question whether reasons requiring channeled restricted good enough satisfy standard fundamental fairness due process requires think first reason supporting mott rule arizona authority define presumption sanity capacity responsibility choosing insanity definition discussed part ii supra placing burden persuasion defendants claim incapacity excuse customary criminal responsibility one certainly clark denies state may place burden persuasion defendant claiming insanity see leland supra permitting state consistent due process require defendant bear burden clark presses objection arizona decision require persuasion clear convincing degree presumption sanity normal responsibility overcome see brief petitioner state authority practice well theory must able deny defendant opportunity displace presumption sanity easily addressing different issue course criminal trial yet explained opportunity available expert testimony mental disease incapacity considered whatever factfinder might think worth issue mens mentioned presumption sanity strong evidence factfinder accept enough raise reasonable doubt mens rea crime charged reasonable doubt found acquittal required standards established defense insanity go boards state course free accept possibility law free define insanity defense treating presumption sanity bursting bubble whose disappearance shifts burden prosecution prove sanity whenever defendant presents credible evidence mental disease incapacity kind insanity rule legislature may well willing allow evidence considered mens rea element whatever factfinder thinks worth counts due process however simply state wishes avoid second avenue exploring capacity less stringent defendant good reason confining consideration evidence mental disease incapacity insanity defense obvious arizona mott rule reflects choice state pointed state declined adopt defense diminished capacity allowing jury decide excuse defendant greater normal difficulty conforming law reasoned state choice undercut evidence incapacity considered whatever jury might think sufficient raise reasonable doubt mens rea even show insanity words jury free decide much evidence mental disease incapacity enough counter evidence mens rea point creating reasonable doubt functional terms analogous allowing jurors decide upon degree diminished capacity obey law degree set prevail state insistence preserving chosen standard legal insanity sole reason rule like mott however fails answer objection dissent makes case see post opinion kennedy insanity rule gives defendant already found guilty opportunity excuse conduct showing insane acted mental capacity conventional guilt criminal responsibility dissent argues evidence affirmatively shows guilty reason insanity guilty except insane arizona law rev stat ann west also shows least doubtful form mens rea found guilty first place thus violates due process state impedes using capacity evidence directly rebut prosecution evidence form mens rea characteristics capacity evidence giving rise risks may reasonably hedged channeling consideration evidence insanity issue like arizona defendant burden persuasion think controversial character categories mental disease potential evidence mislead danger according greater certainty capacity evidence experts claim begin diagnosis may mask vigorous debate within profession contours mental disease see american psychiatric association diagnostic statistical manual mental disorders xxxiii ed text rev hereinafter reflects consensus classification diagnosis mental disorders derived time initial publication new knowledge generated research clinical experience undoubtedly lead increased understanding disorders included identification new disorders removal disorders future classifications text criteria sets included require reconsideration light evolving new information caplan say crazy world powerful psychiatrists decide normal criticism former consultant dsm dsm categories members previously recognized end debate imminent see jones powell texas plurality opinion simply yet time write constitution formulas cast terms whose meaning let alone relevance yet clear doctors though certainly condem evidence wholesale brief american psychiatric association et al amici curiae consequence professional ferment general caution treating psychological classifications predicates excusing otherwise criminal conduct next potential evidence mislead jurors factfinders power kind evidence suggest defendant suffering recognized mental disease lacks cognitive moral volitional capacity may sound conclusion even category mental disease broadly accepted assignment defendant behavior category uncontroversial classification may suggest something significant defendant capacity fact classification tells us little nothing ability defendant form mens rea exercise cognitive moral volitional capacities define legal see categories criteria textual descriptions employed forensic purposes significant risks diagnostic information misused misunderstood dangers arise imperfect fit questions ultimate concern law information contained clinical diagnosis situations clinical diagnosis mental disorder sufficient establish existence legal purposes diseas defect determining whether individual meets specified legal standard criminal responsibility additional information usually required beyond contained diagnosis limits utility professional disease diagnosis evident dispute two testifying experts case agree clark schizophrenic come opposite conclusions whether mental disease particular case left bereft cognitive moral capacity evidence mental disease easily mislead easy slide evidence individual professionally recognized mental disease different doubting capacity form mens rea whereas doubt may justified course cases mentioned categorization doubtful category mental disease subject controversy risks even greater opinions mental disease may confuse jury thinking opinions show allowing evidence mens rea thus easily mislead unreasonable address tendency fining consideration kind evidence insanity defendant may assigned burden persuasion finally particular risks inherent opinions experts supplement classifications opinions incapacity whether mental disease rendered particular defendant incapable cognition necessary moral judgment mens rea otherwise incapable understanding wrongfulness conduct charged unlike observational evidence bearing mens rea capacity evidence consists judgment judgment fraught multiple perils defendant state mind crucial moment elusive matter conscientious enquiry law categories set terms capacity judgment categories psychology govern expert professional thinking although capacity judgments may given utmost good faith potentially tenuous character indicated candor defense expert case contrary state expert testified clark lacked capacity appreciate circumstances realistically understand wrongfulness app said one knows exactly mind time shooting even expert confident understanding mind reliable judgment addressing basic categories capacity requires leap concepts psychology devised thinking treatment concepts legal sanity devised thinking criminal responsibility see insanity defense work group american psychiatric association statement insanity defense psychiatry reprinted role mental illness criminal trials moriarty ed american psychiatric association opposed legislatures restricting psychiatric testimony ultimate legal issues concerning insanity defense issue questions formulated law put expert witness must say expert witness required make leap logic longer addresses medical concepts instead must infer intuit fact unspeakable namely probable relationship medical concepts legal moral constructs free impermissible leaps logic made expert witnesses confuse jury state affairs considerable injustice psychiatry believe possibly criminal defendants psychiatric disagreements cause less fully understanding juries public conclude psychiatrists agree fact many criminal insanity trials prosecution defense psychiatrists agree nature even extent mental disorder exhibited defendant time act emphasis original omitted giannelli imwinkelried scientific evidence matter test insanity phrased psychiatrist psychologist qualified person give opinion whether particular defendant mental condition satisfies legal test insanity cf slovenko psychiatry criminal culpability scope dsm includes disorders mentioned sum empirical conceptual problems add real risk expert judgment giving capacity evidence come apparent authority psychologists psychiatrists claim think risk like difficulty assessing significance evidence supports state decision channel expert testimony consideration insanity defense party seeking benefit evidence burden persuasion bears repeating every state find worthwhile make judgment arizona made choices make dealing risks posed capacity evidence reflect varying assessments presumption sanity expressed choices insanity point simply arizona sensible reasons assign risks done channeling arizona rule serves preserve state chosen standard recognizing insanity defense avoid confusion misunderstanding part reasons violation due process chambers progeny cause claim channeling evidence mental disease capacity offends justice rooted traditions conscience people ranked fundamental patterson quoting speiser judgment appeals arizona accordingly affirmed ordered eric michael clark petitioner arizona writ certiorari appeals arizona division one june justice kennedy justice stevens justice ginsburg join dissenting submission incorrect holding arizona may convict petitioner eric clark murder intentional knowing killing police officer clark permitted introduce critical reliable evidence showing intent knowledge wrong concludes issue reached error clark counsel reasons conclusions lead file respectful dissent since reverse judgment arizona appeals ground arizona courts might well alter interpretation state criminal responsibility statute rationale prevail unnecessary address argument arizona definition insanity violates due process clark claims trial erred refusing consider evidence chronic paranoid schizophrenia deciding whether possessed knowledge intent required murder seizing upon theory invented narrows clark claim raise point everyone else thought involved case says issue us whether right introduce evidence capacity evidence right introduce observation evidence see ante restructured evidentiary universe convincing authority support unworkable terms even however tripartite structure something addressed state trial state appellate counsel either side proceedings briefs parties filed us refuses consider key part clark claim counsel predict invention unrealistic unfair hold clark counsel erred failing anticipate novel approach insist approach minimum case remanded determine whether clark bound counsel purported waiver error course significance beyond case adopts evidentiary framework view unworkable many cases classifies clark behavior expressed beliefs observation evidence insists description experts must evidence capacity evidence see ante categories break quickly understood testimony apply question intent knowledge issue common type schizophrenia one clark suffered paranoid schizophrenia see berner et diagnostic criteria functional psychoses ed existence functional psychosis beyond dispute mean lay witness understands disputed issue fact concerning effect particular instance something expert address common symptoms condition delusions accompanied hallucinations often auditory type cause disturbances perception ibid clark expert testified people schizophrenia often play radios loudly drown voices heads see app clark attorney argued trial rather desire lure policeman scene explained clark behavior killing observation schizophrenics play radios loudly fact regarding behavior relevant fact clark schizophrenia even evidence use term evidence relies expert opinion happen expert simply testify without mentioning schizophrenia people clark symptoms often play radio loudly seems factual evidence term defined yet differs evidence forcing witness pretend one yet come way classify set symptoms described generally opinion clark paranoid schizophrenia opinion shared experts prosecution defense bears efforts determine factual matter whether knew killing police officer psychiatrist explanation clark condition essential understanding processes sensory data therefore deciding information mind time shooting simply put knowledge relies cognition cognition affected schizophrenia see american psychiatric association diagnostic statistical manual mental disorders ed text rev characteristic symptoms schizophrenia involve range cognitive emotional dysfunctions include perception ibid symptoms include delusions erroneous beliefs usually involve misinterpretation perceptions experiences evidence trial also intertwined observation evidence lent needed credibility clark parents friends testified clark thought people town aliens trying kill claims might believable without psychiatrist confirming story based experience people exhibited similar behaviors makes little sense divorce observation evidence explanation makes comprehensible assuming tripartite structure feasible incorrect narrows clark claim exclude concern observation evidence deciding clark counsel failed raise issue relies series perceived ambiguities regarding claim fits within categories see ante cites precedent construing ambiguities claimant prudential reason ignoring breadth clark claim particularly surprising detriment criminal defendant asserting fundamental challenge trier fact refused consider critical evidence showing innocent crime charged alleged ambiguities event illusory evidence trial addressed question general incapacity opinions regarding mental illness went included observation evidence relevant clark mental state moment shot officer testimony example clark thought people town particularly government officials human beings aliens trying kill see app tr bench trial pp recognizes existence essential observation evidence see ante holds nonetheless sure whether trial failed consider evidence ante true trial ruling perfectly clear language strongly suggest though consider testimony deciding whether clark knowledge intent required murder recognizing much evidence defense going submitting fact far know insanity also arguably made form intent capacity intent concluded focusing far concerned strictly insanity defense app announcing verdict trial mention evidence observation otherwise deciding clark guilt reasonable assumption seem trial consider hold otherwise see ante clark objection refusal trier fact consider evidence bore key defense made stages proceeding motion vacate judgment clark argued prohibiting consideration evidence reflecting upon mentally ill criminal defendant ability form necessary mens rea violates due process record doc clark pressed argument arizona appeals see appellant opening brief pp hereinafter appellant opening brief also noted trial judge erred refusing consider testimony presumably call observation evidence clark mental illness trial therefore violated clark right present defense refused consider evidence including multiple testimonials lay witnesses deciding whether form requisite mens rea appeals decided issue merits holding trial correct consider evidence mental illness determining whether clark mens rea murder see app offered distinction observation evidence notwithstanding appeals decision issue clearly presented state courts see ante according clark raised objection based state mott en banc see ante mott holding limited exclusion capacity evidence see ante incorrect counts first clark claim goes well beyond objection mott fact specifically attempted distinguish mott noting trial case refused consider evidence mental illness see record doc see also appellant opening brief notices arguments criticizes clark counsel specific observation evidence wanted trial consider see ante reason though clark counsel believe additional specificity required since evident distinction arizona law observation evidence testimony second mott holding restricted evidence arizona refer distinction observation evidence lay expert testimony holding stated broad terms arizona allow evidence defendant mental disorder short insanity either affirmative defense negate mens rea element crime see legislature decision evidences rejection use psychological testimony challenge mens rea element crime attempts divine distinction mott based mott distinguishing case state christensen banc evidence behavioral tendencies deemed admissible see ante christensen though also addressed expert opinion difference evidence concerned character trait acting reflexively response stress mental illness mott supra since recognizes arizona appeals relied mott expansive rule exclusion mott without suggestion limitation depending kind evidence suffice us reach issue even contends see ante mott limited expert testimony categories still properly interpret mott definition observation evidence includes expert testimony see ante makes difference appeals clark referred issue inability form knowledge intent see appellant opening brief insist vague general incapacity stated instead suffered major mental illness psychotic time offense even clark arguments insufficient apprise state argument ur traditional rule nce federal claim properly presented party make argument support claim parties limited precise arguments made lebron national railroad passenger corporation quoting yee escondido claim clear though seems obscure understood arizona appeals stated clark argues trial erred refusing consider evidence mental disease defect determining whether requisite mens rea commit murder app question state held instructive recast words state used distinction draws evidence used show incapacity evidence used show lack mens rea directly identify two different claims clark single claim however characterized involves use evidence decide whether requisite knowledge intent various ways evidence relevant disproving mens rea hardly qualify separate claims new arguments allowed lebron yee comparison far disconnected initial bases alleged violations see lebron supra purposes showing state action petitioner argue amtrak government entity even though argued private entity close connections government entities claim simply amtrak accord rights obliged provide first amendment yee supra petitioners argue ordinance constituted regulatory taking even though arguably asserted appeals physical taking claim simply ordinance effects unconstitutional taking give latitude litigants civil cases surely must furthermore extent ambiguity remains whether claim raised proper course remand see bradshaw richey slip per curiam unless state clearly decides issue grounds contend occurred bar review federal question see harris reed clark framed issue broad terms encompass question whether evidence mental illness considered show time offense knowledge intent shoot police officer see brief petitioner questions presented review whether arizona blanket exclusion evidence refusal consider mental disease defect rebut state evidence element mens rea violated petitioner right due process constitution fourteenth amendment trial held mott rule obliged find fact clark knew shooting police officer death necessary factual element form first degree murder charged clark simultaneously refusing consider clark evidence acute episode chronic paranoid schizophrenic illness prevented actually knowledge emphasis omitted arizona courts erred holding clark punished though knowledge intent although may fact either reply brief petitioner challenging trial judge refusal give consideration evidence making factual findings whether clark act state mind required murder conviction entire section clark opening brief argues evidence mental illness considered rebut prosecution inference knowledge intent factual circumstances crime see brief petitioner line argument concerns facts behavior amounts claim general incapacity clark seeks resolution issues complex somewhat overlapping end however must decide whether right introduce evidence showing lacked intent knowledge statute sets forth describing basic element crime clark preserved issue stages including ii clark charged murder shooting officer jeffrey moritz person commits murder relevant ntending knowing person conduct cause death law enforcement officer person causes death law enforcement officer line duty rev stat ann west supp clark challenges trial refusal consider evidence mental illness lay expert testimony determining whether acted knowledge intent element crime see app see also mott substantial latitude constitution define rules exclusion evidence apply rules criminal defendants see scheffer authority however constitutional rooted directly due process clause fourteenth amendment compulsory process confrontation clauses sixth amendment constitution guarantees criminal defendants meaningful opportunity present complete defense holmes south carolina slip quoting crane kentucky turn quoting california trombetta right abridged evidence rules upon weighty interest accused arbitrary disproportionate purposes designed serve holmes supra slip quoting scheffer supra turn quoting rock arkansas central theory clark defense schizophrenia made delusional lived universe delusions dominant theory intent shoot police officer knowledge one thing say acted intent knowledge pull trigger quite another say pulled trigger kill someone knew human police officer trier fact find clark evidence sufficient discount case made state burden prove knowledge intent element offense clark guilty murder arizona law attempts diminish clark interest treating evidence concerning judgment rather fact ante view appears derive characterization clark claim raising general incapacity see ibid wrong reasons already discussed fails recognize moreover meaning offense element question mens rea element intent knowledge may level comprise certain moral choices rests first instance factual determination fact clark sought put issue either clark knew killing police officer issue insists whether clark mental illness acts excuse customary criminal responsibility ante whether mental illness factual matter made unaware shooting police officer clark needs excuse commit crime arizona defines elements murder question knowledge particular facts one killing police officer determination depends moral responsibility empirical fact clark evidence mental illness direct substantial bearing upon knew thought knew facts pulled trigger lay heart matter trial exclusion severe barred consideration issue mens rea evidence source thus preventing clark showing commit crime defined arizona law quite apart due process principles held bar sort inconsistent confrontation clause see delaware van arsdall van arsdall held state erred making ruling prohibited inquiry event issue line defense questioning designed show bias prosecution witness instant case ruling question bars consideration testimony witnesses necessary present argument central whole case defense challenge state proof element crime due process compulsory process clauses confrontation clause may controlling standard disability imposed accused every bit substantial pervasive van arsdall arizona rule problematic excludes evidence matter credible material may disproving element offense cases noted potential arbitrariness per se exclusions rationale invalidated various state prohibitions see holmes supra slip rule excluding certain cases evidence third party may committed crime even evidence viewed independently great probative value even pose undue risk harassment prejudice confusion issues rock supra rule excluding hypnotically refreshed testimony operates detriment defendant undergoes hypnosis without regard reasons circumstances took place independent verification information produced washington texas rule excluding accomplice testimony prevent whole categories defense witnesses testifying basis priori categories presume unworthy belief suggest general rules exclusion certain types evidence invalid rule substantially burden defense likely permissible see scheffer upholding exclusion polygraph evidence part rule implicate significant interest accused kennedy concurring part concurring judgment ome later case might present compelling case introduction testimony one however burden substantial state must present valid reason per se evidentiary rule instant case arizona proposed reasons insufficient support categorical exclusion state contends testimony regarding mental illness may incredible speculative jury consider explain exclusion applies cases evidence mental illness state legitimate interest barring unreliable evidence extend per se exclusions may reliable individual case rock certain discretion bar unreliable speculative testimony adopt rules ensure reliability expert testimony arizona done reason believe rules insufficient avoid speculative evidence mental illness see rules evid west particularly true arizona applies usual approach permit admission evidence mental illness variety purposes see state lindsey en banc psychological characteristics molestation victims state hamilton app psychological evidence child abuse accommodation syndrome horan indus app psychiatric testimony regarding neurological deficits risk jury confusion also fails justify rule state defends rule means avoid complexities determining degree mental illness affects person mental state difficulty resolving factual issue though present sufficient reason take evidence away jury even crucial defense always trusted juries sort complex facts various areas law booker stevens dissenting part even risk jury confusion real enough justify excluding evidence cases provide little basis prohibiting evidence mental illness without inquiry likely effect jury role deciding linchpin issue knowledge intent indeed arizona rule place serve purpose see rule evid even assuming reliability justifications persuasive cases suffice overcome constitutional objection say evidentiary rule reasonable face applied well bar significant defense evidence without rational basis van arsdall example rejected application delaware rule evidence allows relevant evidence excluded probative value substantially outweighed risk unfair prejudice harms trial process circumstances constitutional rights directly affecting ascertainment guilt implicated hearsay rule may applied mechanistically defeat ends justice cf scheffer kennedy concurring part concurring judgment undertakes little analysis interests particular case proceeding way devalues clark constitutional rights reliability rationale minimal applicability correct many mental diseases difficult define subject great debate see ante schizophrenia however mental illness one seriously disputes either definition prominent clinical manifestations state expert conceded clark paranoid schizophrenia actively psychotic time killing see app rationale applicable result insistence conflating insanity defense question intent considered terms issue intent knowledge straightforward factual question trier fact quite capable weighing defense testimony determining whether accused intend kill knowingly kill human police officer true issue difficult decide particular instances many matters juries must confront says evidence easily mislead ante may tel us little nothing ability defendant form mens rea ante generalities however show relevant misleading evidence case explain arizona rule evidence insufficient weighing factors explained evidence clark mental illness bears directly mens rea suggests clark may known killing human striking discusses length likelihood misjudgment placing much emphasis evidence mental illness see ante ignores risk misjudging innocent man guilty refusing consider highly relevant evidence clark expert true said one know exactly clark mind time shooting see ante expert testified extensively however effect clark delusions perceptions world around whether clark behavior around time shooting consistent delusional thinking testimony relevant determining whether clark knew killing human also bolstered testimony lay witnesses none deemed unreliable misleading state courts reasons errs seeking support american psychiatric association statement psychiatrist may justifiably reluctant reach legal conclusions regarding defendant mental state see ante case american psychiatric association made clear psychiatric evidence plays crucial role regardless whether psychiatrist testifies ultimate issue expert evidence mental disorders presented qualified professionals subject adversarial testing relevant issues raised mens rea requirements reliable evidence condemned wholesale without unsettling legal system central reliance evidence brief american psychiatric association et al amici curiae contrary suggestion see ante fact state defense experts drew different conclusions effect clark mental illness mental state made clark evidence contested make evidence irrelevant misleading trial capable evaluating competing conclusions factfinders countless cases dispute among witnesses fact potential mislead far greater new evidentiary system jurors receive observation evidence without necessary explanation experts fact evidence may considered deciding criminal responsibility compensate exclusion consideration mens rea elements crime cf ante evidence addresses different issues two instances criminal responsibility involves inquiry whether defendant knew right wrong whether mens rea elements offense may overlap two issues existence nonexistence legal insanity bears necessary relationship existence nonexistence required mental elements crime mullaney wilbur rehnquist concurring even analyses equivalent different burden proof insanity mens rea arizona requires defendant prove insanity clear convincing evidence see rev stat ann west prosecution however must prove elements offense beyond reasonable doubt see mullaney supra winship shift burden criminal responsibility issue permissible precedent see leland oregon applied question intent knowledge without relieving state responsibility establish element offense see sandstrom montana jury instruction effect placing burden defendant disprove requisite mental state violates due process evidentiary rules generally shift burden impermissibly right evidence considered element offense right respected allowing evidence come issue defendant bears burden proof see cool per curiam jury instruction allowed jury consider accomplice testimony true beyond reasonable doubt places improper burden defense allows jury convict despite failure find guilt beyond reasonable doubt martin ohio state shift burden claim jury disallowed considering evidence purposes deciding elements offense relieve state burden plainly run afoul winship mandate viewing arizona rule creating merely presumption sanity capacity responsibility ante rather presumption mens rea elements affected mental illness fails appreciate implications winship state attempts sidestep evidentiary issue entirely claiming exclusion simply alters one element crime evidentiary rule issue however considered valid redefinition offense state logic person guilty murder knowingly intentionally killed police officer committed killing circumstances show knowledge intent defendant mental illness begin arizona law say impermissible substantial discretion defining criminal offenses instances may provide accused burden persuasion respect affirmative defenses see patterson new york obviously constitutional limits beyond may go regard ibid otherwise label evidentiary exclusions redefinitions evade constitutional requirements rational basis furthermore criminally punishing person commits killing without knowledge intent person mental illness cf robinson california state attempts bring instant case within ambit montana egelhoff egelhoff excluded evidence concerned voluntary intoxication person held responsible viewed either evidentiary rule redefinition offense upheld comports implements society moral perception one voluntarily impaired faculties responsible consequences plurality opinion involuntary mental illness implicate justification future dangerousness appears conclude see ante rational basis convicting mentally ill individuals crimes commit civil commitment proceedings ensure individuals present danger others receive proper treatment without unfairly treating criminals state presents evidence contrary imply otherwise state gains little support fisher defendant requested instruction trial jury consider mental deficiencies determining capacity premeditation deliberation noted view status defense partial responsibility district nation contention made denial due process dictum may attributable fact cases recognizing defendant evidentiary rights prosecution duty prove elements beyond reasonable doubt still decades away may also reflect fact jury instructions given seem allow jury consider evidence mental deficiency disproved elements offense see jury instructions stated contended even sane responsible deliberate intent kill fact actual intent kill therefore guilty reason insanity defendant guilty second degree murder even ambiguity comes fact defense fisher concerned claim petitioner mentally somewhat average psychopathic personality aggression general claim mental deficiencies relevant theory partial responsibility wanted jury consider unlike mental illness though concerns inadequacy perception information processing petitioner claim may relevant mens rea unless mens rea redefined include element responsibility fisher language control case arizona rule unique either historically contemporary practice fact dispose clark constitutional argument extent fisher may suggested contrary subsequent cases make clear existence rule jurisdictions significant factor consider see egelhoff supra plurality opinion dispositive evaluation claim accused foreclosed introducing evidence crucial defense evidentiary exclusion accomplice testimony invalidated washington fact well established see exclusion hypnotically refreshed testimony likewise support held unconstitutional applied defendant testimony rock still impose significant restrictions use evidence negate mens rea substantial majority currently allow brief amicus curiae fact reasonable number restrict evidence weighs analysis applying rule per se bar arizona plainly unreasonable sustained putting aside lack legitimate state interest application rule case irrationality apparent considering evidence allowed see washington supra absurdity rule amply demonstrated exceptions made arizona permits defendant introduce example evidence behavioral tendencies show required mental state see mott christensen defining mental illness difficult matter state seems exclude evidence one think reliable allowing unexplained uncategorized tendencies introduced excluding relatively psychiatric testimony regarding mental illnesses unclear moreover happened case defendant wanted testify thought officer moritz alien disallowed tantamount barring clark testifying behalf explain actions allowed arizona rule simply prohibit corroboration necessary make sense clark explanation sum rule forces jury decide guilt fictional world undefined unexplained behaviors without mental illness rule rational justification imposes significant burden upon straightforward defense commit crime charged reasons respectful dissent eric michael clark petitioner arizona writ certiorari appeals arizona division one june justice breyer concurring part dissenting part understand opinion distinguishes among three categories evidence related insanity evidence defendant specific state mind time crime evidence shows thought policeman human expert opinion evidence defendant suffered mental disease affected capacity form intent kill policeman suffers disease kind powerful voices command sufferer kill expert opinion evidence defendant legally insane evidence know right wrong ante agree basic categorization also agree constitution permits state provide consideration second third types evidence solely conjunction insanity defense state might reasonably fear without rule types evidence intent become confused jury mind indeed cases insanity question displace intent question parties litigate simultaneously nonetheless believe distinction among kinds evidence unclear cases though accept majority reading record remain concerned whether lower courts setting forth applying state mott en banc cert denied focused sufficient directness precision upon distinction consequently remand case arizona courts determine whether arizona law set forth mott cases consistent distinction draws whether trial applied arizona law also reserve question believe done burden persuasion case defendant produces sufficient evidence second kind raise reasonable doubt suffered mental illness severe prevent forming relevant intent reason dissent parts opinion ultimate disposition case join remainder footnotes section provides person commits first degree murder ntending knowing person conduct cause death law enforcement officer person causes death law enforcement officer line duty section provides full person may found guilty except insane time commission criminal act person afflicted mental disease defect severity person know criminal act wrong mental disease defect constituting legal insanity affirmative defense mental disease defect include disorders result acute voluntary intoxication withdrawal alcohol drugs character defects psychosexual disorders impulse control disorders conditions constitute legal insanity include limited momentary temporary conditions arising pressure circumstances moral decadence depravity passion growing anger jealousy revenge hatred motives person suffer mental disease defect abnormality manifested criminal conduct defendant found guilty except insane committed state mental health facility treatment see trial permitted clark introduce evidence whether primarily going insanity lack intent goes insanity issue front jury app also allowed make offer proof intent preserve issue appeal ibid clark time make additional offer proof contemplated trial ruled consider evidence bearing insanity insanity mens rea see supra statutory standard followed arizona declaration arizona uniformly adhered standard state schantz citing cases cert denied change accompanied others principally enumeration mental excluded category mental disease defect voluntary intoxication conditions change insanity verdict responsible criminal conduct reason insanity guilty except insane see sess laws ch amendments prompted least part acquittal reason insanity murder case see note arizona insane response insanity rev capacity understood mean ability form certain state mind motive understand evaluate one actions control see queen oxford car eng controlling disease truth acting power within defendant resist responsible hadfield case tr cf queen burton eng rejecting test dangerous doctrine parsons state state thompson wright ohio state jones state pike distillation insanity standards combinations four building blocks read signify components contribute insanity standards material distinctions jurisdictions testing insanity building blocks example jurisdictions limit varying degrees sorts mental illness defect give rise successful insanity defense compare rev stat ann west excluding definition mental disease defect acute voluntary intoxication withdrawal alcohol drugs character defects psychosexual disorders impulse control disorders ind code west excluding definition mental disease defect abnormality manifested repeated unlawful antisocial conduct need compare standards finer lens coarser analysis shows standards vary significantly see code cal penal code ann west rev stat stat iowa code stat stevens state miss mo rev stat state harms neb rev stat finger state stat ann west penal law ann west state thompson burrows state crim app interpreting statutory language excusing criminal responsibility mentally ill defendants time committing act charged incapable knowing wrongfulness okla tit west mean test cons stat code ann rev code north dakota unique test appears modified version asking whether defendant lacks substantial capacity comprehend harmful nature consequences conduct conduct result loss serious distortion individual capacity recognize reality cent code ann lexis essential element crime charged individual act willfully alaska stat rev stat ann west del code tit ind code west comp ch west la stat ann west rev stat tit ohio rev code ann lexis code ann codified laws supp pamphlet tex penal code ann west ali model penal code proposed official draft person responsible criminal conduct time conduct result mental disease defect lacks substantial capacity either appreciate criminality wrongfulness conduct conform conduct requirements law ark code ann stat malede code ann haw rev stat rev stat ann west md crim proc code ann lexis commonwealth mclaughlin mass rev stat state martinez stat tit state lockhart stat wyo stat ann comp laws ann west state hartley bennett commonwealth app state plante see alaska stat del code tit code ann comp ch west ind code west rev stat ann west comp laws ann west supp stat ann cons stat code ann codified laws usually defendant found guilty mentally ill receive treatment mental health rebounded point must serve remainder imposed sentence see alaska stat idaho code lexis stat ann mont code ann utah code ann lexis never held constitution mandates insanity defense held constitution require case call upon us decide matter lexis see statutes cited supra might course thought delusively something wrongful act charged test must understood committing act charged wrongful see rev stat ann west person may found guilty except insane time commission criminal act person afflicted mental disease defect severity person know criminal act wrong think logic holds true face usual rule statutory construction giv ing effect possible every clause word statute duncan walker quoting menasche see also sutherland statutes statutory construction ed insanity standards formulated guide factfinder determine blameworthiness mentally ill defendant see jones brennan dissenting test sequential test first asking factfinder conduct easier enquiry whether defendant knew nature quality actions defendant considered insane need pass harder broader enquiry whether defendant knew actions wrong owing sequence factfinder ask whether defendant lacks moral capacity possesses cognitive capacity defendants found lack moral capacity possessing cognitive capacity cf torcia wharton criminal law ed though arizona place full test sequential enquiry see schantz appear legislature eliminated cognitive capacity part change meaning insanity standard implement judgment streamlined standard moral capacity part easier jury apply see arizona house representative judiciary committee notes mar gerber criminal law arizona ed supp corroborated state choice many years revising applicable recommended jury instruction enumerating complete test order match amended statutory standard see gerber supra thus think dissent reads mott broadly see post opinion kennedy distinction observation testimony see infra lay expert natural reading mott suggests us evidence considered mens rea even defendant establishes insanity though one might read mott otherwise clark parents testified months shooting even days beforehand clark called aliens thought aliens get see tr bench trial cr pp one night shooting according clark mother clark repeatedly viewed popular film characterized telling story aliens masquerading government agents story clark insisted real despite mother protestations contrary see two months shooting clark purportedly told parents hometown flagstaff inhabited principally aliens stopped way stop bullets see contrary dissent understanding see post opinion kennedy conflict dissent characterization see post opinion kennedy always however come experts arizona permits capacity evidence see state sanchez see also rule evid allowing otherwise admissible evidence testimony embrac ing ultimate issue decided trier fact though every jurisdiction permits evidence ultimate issue insanity see fed rule evid expert witness testifying respect mental state condition defendant criminal case may state opinion inference whether defendant mental state condition constituting element crime charged defense thereto ultimate issues matters trier fact alone dixon face evidence rule prohibits expert testifying evidence prevent defendant appreciating wrongfulness actions arizona permits evidence bearing insanity presented either lay expert witnesses see state bay according bay oundationally lay witness must opportunity observe past conduct history defendant fact lay witness goes admissibility testimony rather weight ibid citation omitted see also state hughes fact defendant theoretically establish insanity solely via lay testimony see bay cf state mcmurtrey difficult imagine defendant place sanity issue without expert testimony defendant state mind time crime respect limited factual issues trial held consider rev stat ann mott defense counsel made additional proof conclusion case preserved clark legal contentions asking consider evidence presented determining whether state proved case brief petitioner citations omitted agree state argument failure make offer proof see supra bar pressing clark claim admissibility capacity evidence mens rea see brief respondent especially arizona appeals rejected clark argument merits rather clearly ground see app see also michigan long clear opinion state relied upon adequate independent state ground fairly appears state rested decision primarily federal law therefore reason believe courts arizona failed restrict application mott professional testimony mott opinion stated cover clark counsel specified observation evidence claimed generally admissible relevant mens rea nothing hold authority restricting factfinder consideration observation evidence indicating state mind time criminal offense conventional mens rea evidence distinct professional capacity evidence going ability form certain state mind period includes time offense charged course nothing held prevents clark raising discrete claim case returns courts arizona consistent state procedural rules legislature nonetheless free require affirmative proof sanity way describes criminal offense see dixon ante slip although desired evidentiary use restricted equivalent sandstrom presumption see sandstrom montana due process forbids use presumption relieves prosecution burden proving mental state inference intent act fact oregon scheme place decided leland oregon however read part leland require matter due process evidence incapacity considered rebut mens rea element crime reject state argument mens rea insanity currently understood entirely distinguishable capacity evidence relevant insanity simply irrelevant mens rea evidence accepted showing insanity trump mens rea evidence behavior close time act charged may indicate actual state mind time also enduring incapacity form criminal state mind necessary offense charged see brief american psychiatric association et al amici curiae arenella diminished capacity diminished responsibility defenses two children doomed marriage colum rev cf powell texas plurality opinion doctrines actus reus mens rea insanity mistake justification duress collection interlocking overlapping concepts common law utilized assess moral accountability individual antisocial deeds clark argument assumes arizona rule rule evidence rather redefinition mens rea see montana egelhoff ginsburg concurring judgment dissenting reason view rule otherwise assumption violate due process see infra cf post kennedy dissenting psychiatrist explanation clark condition essential understanding processes sensory data therefore deciding information mind time shooting simply put knowledge relies cognition cognition affected schizophrenia though term diminished capacity given different meanings see morse undiminished confusion diminished capacity crim diminished capacity doctrine allows criminal defendant introduce evidence mental abnormality trial either negate mental element crime charged thereby exonerating defendant charge reduce degree crime defendant may convicted even defendant conduct satisfied formal elements higher offense california jurisdiction concept traditionally associated understood simply defendant mental capacity reduced mental illness mental defect intoxication people berry cal banc quoting people castillo cal emphasis deleted abrogated cal penal code ann west supp beyond question arizona may preclude defense see fisher doubt arizona legislature meant see rev stat ann west mental disease defect include disorders result acute voluntary intoxication withdrawal alcohol drugs character defects psychosexual disorders impulse control disorders conditions constitute legal insanity include limited momentary temporary conditions arising pressure circumstances moral decadence depravity passion growing anger jealousy revenge hatred motives person suffer mental disease defect abnormality manifested criminal conduct observation impact evidence understandings capacity way undermines assertion american psychiatric association american psychological association american academy psychiatry case xpert evidence mental disorders relevant issues raised mens rea requirements brief american psychiatric association et al amici curiae state burden persuasion defendant sanity lies prosecution might also justified restricting capacity evidence insanity determinations owing potential evidence mislead risk misjudgment inherent capacity evidence need context case address issue arizona rule supported practical reason though weighty considered mentioned substantial capacity evidence accepted rebutting mens rea given case affirmative defense insanity probably reached ruled upon defendant simply acquitted perhaps convicted lesser included offense acquitted defendant suffers mental disease defect makes dangerous neither confined treated psychiatrically unless judge orders independent commitment proceeding defendant succeeds showing insane arizona law presumably every state insanity rule require commitment treatment consequence finding without makes sense channel capacity evidence issue structured deal mental incapacity claim raised successfully see jones purpose commitment following insanity acquittal treat individual mental illness protect society potential dangerousness rule also deals practical way whose insanity shown make dangerous others see supra