Model Penal Code § 4.01

12 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• United States v. Brawner
  471 F.2d 969· D.C. Cir.· 1972-06-23 ·cited 172×
  The court adopts the American Law Institute's test for criminal responsibility, replacing the Durham rule, in an effort to improve the adjudication of the responsibility issue and address the failures of the Durham test.
• United States v. Smith
  404 F.2d 720· 6th Cir.· 1968-11-25 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instruction on the insanity defense, based on an outdated M'Naghten variation, was reversible error. The court adopted the American Law Institute's (ALI) test for criminal responsibility.
• United States v. Porter
  431 F.2d 7· 9th Cir.· 1970-08-12 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the trial court's jury instructions, even if not perfectly aligned with the new insanity standard, did not constitute reversible error because the defendant failed to establish a viable insanity defense under any standard, and other alleged instructional error
• Earnest Eugene Anderson v. State
  276 So. 2d 17· Fla.· 1973-03-28 ·cited 52×
  The Florida Supreme Court reversed a first-degree murder conviction because the trial court failed to instruct the jury on the definition of "premeditation," an essential element distinguishing first-degree from second-degree murder. The court affirmed its long-standing adherence
• United States v. Eichberg
  439 F.2d 620· D.C. Cir.· 1971-01-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the jury's verdict on the issue of responsibility must stand when expert evidence presents a classic question for the jury.
• United States v. Massa
  804 F.2d 1020· 8th Cir.· 1986-10-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a psychiatric report, discovered after trial, did not establish grounds for a new trial but warranted a hearing for potential sentence reduction. The court also found no basis for a new trial based on alleged perjury or suppressed evidence.
• United States v. Taylor
  510 F.2d 1283· D.C. Cir.· 1975-04-07 ·cited 7×
  The court held that while the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for second-degree murder and carrying a dangerous weapon, the verdict on the issue of mental responsibility must be set aside due to prejudicial errors in the bifurcated trial proceedings.
• United States v. Sheller
  369 F.2d 293· 2d Cir.· 1966-12-05 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the supervening decision in United States v. Freeman, adopting the Model Penal Code's standard for criminal responsibility, should apply to cases on direct appeal, requiring a new trial.
• United States ex rel. Frank Phelan v. Brierley
  453 F.2d 73· 3d Cir.· 1971-10-26 ·cited 3×
  The dissenting judge believes the state court erred by not holding an independent hearing on the petitioner-appellant's competency, and that a retrospective hearing in the district court was insufficient.
• United States v. Brown
  899 F.2d 189· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-27 ·cited 2×
  Insanity is not a defense to a violation of probation under federal law, and the district court did not err in revoking probation.
• United States v. Brewton
  434 F.2d 233· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-30
  The court held that the trial court's finding of sanity was supported by evidence, even when considering the defendant's potential malingering.
• United States v. Cartwright
  429 F.2d 1298· 6th Cir.· 1970-08-06
  The court held that the trial court's jury instruction on insanity was reversible error because it did not conform to the ALI standards adopted in United States v. Smith.