Burden Of Proof In Insanity Defense

98 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• French v. State
  266 So. 2d 51· Fla. 3d DCA· 1972-08-01 ·cited 16×
  The court held that there was sufficient competent evidence to support the jury's verdict of sanity, despite conflicting psychiatric testimony.
• Martin v. Dugger
  686 F. Supp. 1523· S.D. Fla.· 1988-06-01 ·cited 15×
  The court denies the writ of habeas corpus for claims I, III, and IV, finding them procedurally barred or without merit, but orders an evidentiary hearing for claim II regarding competency to be executed.
• Camp v. State
  149 So. 2d 367· Fla. 2d DCA· 1963-02-06 ·cited 15×
  Rodney Camp was convicted by jury of breaking and entering with intent to commit rape and sentenced to 6 months to 15 years. On appeal, Camp challenges the verdict by arguing that expert psychiatric testimony established he was insane and unable to distinguish right from wrong at
• Lucretia Brown v. State
  467 So. 2d 323· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-02-13 ·cited 14×
• United States v. Wood
  628 F.2d 554· D.C. Cir.· 1980-03-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the appellant's conviction for escape was inapplicable under 18 U.S.C. § 751(a), but the majority affirmed the armed robbery conviction despite claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
• Emerson v. State
  294 So. 2d 721· Fla. 4th DCA· 1974-05-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to prove the appellant was sane at the time of the homicide beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Frigillana v. United States
  307 F.2d 665· D.C. Cir.· 1962-06-19 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the government failed to meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's act was not the product of her mental disease, and thus a directed verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity should have been entered.
• United States v. Jacobs
  473 F.2d 461· 10th Cir.· 1973-02-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on insanity, as the evidence did not support such a defense and voluntary intoxication was not a complete defense.
• Isaiah Bradley v. United States
  249 F.2d 922· D.C. Cir.· 1957-09-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury could properly conclude the appellant was sane and that his act was not the product of mental disease, and that the trial judge did not err in his instructions or in questioning the psychiatrist.
• United States v. Dube
  520 F.2d 250· 1st Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to allow the jury to find the defendant sane beyond a reasonable doubt.
• United States v. Ezra Lee Hereden
  464 F.2d 611· 5th Cir.· 1972-08-03 ·cited 10×
  The admission of a psychiatric staff report, even if it mentions competency, does not constitute plain error under 18 U.S.C.A. § 4244 when no separate judicial competency hearing was held. Similarly, a jury instruction on the presumption of sanity is not plain error if it aligns
• United States v. Retolaza
  398 F.2d 235· 4th Cir.· 1968-06-27 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated by the search and seizure, as the consent given was voluntary and not coerced.
• Carita Corpuz v. State
  733 So. 2d 1048· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-03-24 ·cited 9×
  Appellant Corpuz appeals her conviction for sexual battery on a child under twelve, raising an insanity defense based on expert testimony that she experienced a psychotic episode from intoxication. The court affirms, holding that the experts' own admissions that intoxicated perso
• Wallace v. State
  766 So. 2d 364· Fla. 3d DCA· 2000-07-26 ·cited 8×
  Jeffrey Wade Wallace appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and four counts of attempted first-degree murder arising from a shooting at a bar in Key West. The court affirms all convictions, rejecting Wallace's insanity defenses based on the M'Naghten rule and hallucinati
• Milburn v. State
  742 So. 2d 362· Fla. 2d DCA· 1999-08-18 ·cited 8×
  Michael Milburn was convicted of first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder in the stabbing death of Anna Carter and attack on her daughter. The Florida appellate court reversed his first-degree murder conviction due to prosecutorial errors in closing argument regardin
• United States v. Thigpen
  4 F.3d 1573· 11th Cir.· 1993-10-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that trial judges should not instruct juries on the consequences of a not guilty by reason of insanity verdict, as jurors should not be concerned with the consequences of their verdicts. The dissenting opinion argued that jurors are concerned and that the lack of i
• Morgan v. Israel
  735 F.2d 1033· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the defendant knowingly waived his right to a trial on the issue of intent by pleading not guilty by reason of insanity, and thus his petition for habeas corpus was properly denied.
• Nelson v. Hutto
  597 F.2d 137· 8th Cir.· 1979-05-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that placing the burden of proving insanity on the defendant does not violate due process, and evidentiary rulings on admissibility of evidence are generally matters of state law not cognizable in habeas corpus.
• Erro Sallavirta v. State
  210 So. 2d 487· Fla. 3d DCA· 1968-05-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trier of fact was entitled to resolve conflicting evidence regarding the defendant's sanity in favor of sanity.
• Smith v. United States
  272 F.2d 547· D.C. Cir.· 1959-11-25 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on insanity, as the evidence presented did not constitute 'some evidence' of insanity. The court also found no prejudice from the jury's receipt of a handbook.
• United States v. Pershing Dubray
  854 F.2d 1099· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-17 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court properly refused an insanity instruction and that expert testimony on psychosis did not violate Rule 704(b).
• United States v. Atwell
  570 F.2d 650· 6th Cir.· 1978-02-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial judge's finding of legal sanity was not clearly erroneous, despite conflicting psychiatric testimony, and affirmed the conviction.
• Tucker v. United States
  318 F.2d 221· D.C. Cir.· 1963-03-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that ambiguous jury instructions regarding the insanity defense and the distinction between first and second-degree murder did not constitute prejudicial error requiring reversal.
• King v. State
  263 So. 3d 244· Fla. 2d DCA· 2019-01-25 ·cited 5×
  A trial court commits fundamental error by failing to conduct a competency hearing and render a written order on competency after appointing experts to evaluate the defendant. Although the trial court also erred in failing to instruct the jury of a rebuttable presumption of insan
• Crockham v. State
  723 So. 2d 355· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-12-23 ·cited 5×
  The appellate court affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal as there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the appellant failed to present evidence sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as t
• United States v. Samuels
  801 F.2d 1052· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·cited 5×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the defendant was sane at the time he wrote and mailed the threatening letter to the President.
• Bourriague v. State
  820 So. 2d 997· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-06-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge erred by applying the wrong legal standard regarding the burden of proof for insanity, requiring reversal and remand for new trials.
• United States v. Emmett Am. Horse
  671 F.2d 286· 8th Cir.· 1982-02-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for voluntary manslaughter and the jury's finding of sanity, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in managing the trial proceedings.
• United States v. Schmidt
  572 F.2d 206· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying the motion for a new trial based on references to prior incarceration, nor in denying the motion for judgment of acquittal based on the government's proof of sanity.
• Lenora Jane Marshall v. State
  339 So. 2d 723· Fla. 1st DCA· 1976-10-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to admit an unsigned, untranscribed statement as a confession and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
• United States v. Hendrix
  542 F.2d 879· 2d Cir.· 1976-10-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial judge's instruction on the presumption of sanity, while perhaps not preferable, did not constitute plain error requiring reversal in the absence of an objection, as the jury was unequivocally instructed that the government bore the burden of proving
• United States v. Arroyave
  465 F.2d 962· 9th Cir.· 1972-08-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instruction on the presumption of sanity was erroneous and could not be considered harmless error.
• State v. Jackson
  204 So. 3d 958· Fla. 5th DCA· 2016-11-10 ·cited 3×
  The State appeals a postconviction court's decision vacating Anthony Jackson's conviction for attempted first-degree murder, robbery, and aggravated battery based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The appellate court reversed, finding that although trial counsel was deficient
• United States v. Knott
  894 F.2d 1119· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-26 ·cited 3×
  Voluntary intoxication, even when combined with a mental disease or defect, cannot be considered in determining an insanity defense under the Insanity Defense Reform Act.
• Chatman v. State
  199 So. 2d 475· Fla.· 1967-05-03 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the denial of a change of venue, the defendant's competency, and the constitutionality of the murder statute were not grounds for reversal after a voluntary guilty plea.
• State v. Rogers
  955 So. 2d 1213· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-05-09 ·cited 2×
  Florida sought certiorari review of a trial court's pretrial ruling that excluded testimony from the defendant's privately retained mental health expert regarding statements the defendant made about the offense, based on Fifth Amendment privilege. The appellate court held that th
• United States v. Rosenheimer
  807 F.2d 107· 7th Cir.· 1986-12-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence of a mental disease or defect to warrant a finding of insanity under the pre-1984 standard, and thus the government was not required to prove sanity.
• Phillips v. Hocker
  473 F.2d 395· 9th Cir.· 1973-01-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Nevada's rule placing the burden of proving insanity on the defendant does not violate the Due Process Clause, and a potentially erroneous jury instruction regarding the burden of proof for mitigation was harmless error given the other instructions.
• Earp v. Hoyt C. Cupp
  453 F.2d 378· 9th Cir.· 1972-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the petitioner's admissions were voluntary and made in accordance with his rights, and that the Oregon statute regarding the burden of proving insanity is constitutional.
• Kregger v. Bannan
  273 F.2d 813· 6th Cir.· 1960-01-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied the appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
• Samuels v. Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency
  S.D. Fla.· 2014-09-29
  The court held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because their alleged injury was too remote and speculative, and that judicial review of the FHFA's decision to suspend payments was precluded by the Administrative Procedure Act's discretionary function exception.
• United States v. LaVance Greene
  834 F.2d 1067· D.C. Cir.· 1987-12-11
  A conviction for felony murder does not require a formal conviction on the underlying felony; proof of all elements of the underlying felony is sufficient. Furthermore, the District of Columbia's insanity burden of proof applies to all offenses committed in the District, includin
• Rossi v. State
  416 So. 2d 1166· Fla. 4th DCA· 1982-06-16
  Thomas Rossi appealed his convictions for kidnapping, sexual battery, and attempted murder, challenging the trial court's admission of evidence regarding a similar crime committed 10 years earlier. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that evidence of the prior c
• Johnson v. State
  408 So. 2d 813· Fla. 3d DCA· 1982-01-19
  The trial court's exclusion of expert testimony regarding defendant's insanity at the time of the offense deprived defendant of his constitutional right to present witnesses and constitutes reversible error that cannot be deemed harmless.