- Source: Hendershott v. People
Hendershott v. People, Supreme Court of Colorado, 653 P.2d. 385 (1982), is a criminal case that a defendant who was not excused by being legally insane, might still be exculpated because he lacked a guilty mind (mens rea) due to a mental disease.: 613
In Colorado, Lee Roy Hendershott accused a woman he was dating of being with another man, then struck, kicked, and choked her. He was charged with third degree assault in state court.: 264–268 In Colorado, third degree assault was a general intent crime (involving the act being knowingly or recklessly done), not a specific intent crime (in which the crime is intentionally done).: 264–268 Hendershott's defense attorney attempted to introduce evidence that Hendershott suffered from a mental disorder causing impulse control to counter that defendant had a guilty mind (mens rea).: 264–268 The evidence was excluded because of a statute that evidence of mental impairment short of legal insanity may be offered as bearing on capacity to form a specific intent.: 264–268 Defendant was convicted and appealed.: 264–268
The state Supreme Court reversed and remanded.: 264–268 It reasoned that constitutional due process requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant has a guilty mind (mens rea), and to prove every fact needed to constitute the crime, citing Sandstrom v. Montana and Patterson v. New York.: 264–268 One element is mens rea. Disallowing evidence to rebut a prosecution showing that defendant had the requisite mens rea was an unconstitutional denial of due process.: 264–268 The court distinguished between legislation precluding an affirmative defense, and precluding a rebuttal to showing the element of mens rea.: 264–268
References
External links
Text of Hendershott v. People is available from: Google Scholar Justia vLex