The Supreme Court’s new term started October 1st, but the Court met
on September 24th to consider whether to grant new cases. One case that the Court is still
considering hearing is Delling v. Idaho.[1] The main issue in Delling is whether Idaho violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution by abolishing the insanity defense in criminal cases. The Court has never addressed what the
answer to this question might be; if the Court hears it, Delling will be the first time states have any guidance as to the
constitutionality of outlawing the insanity defense in criminal cases.
Most crimes require that the government prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that the defendant intended to commit an act. The insanity defense usually involves the question of
whether a person was too insane to be considered legally responsible for his
actions. This defense could be a
complete defense to the crime, so if proven, the person would not have to serve
time in jail. In 2005, Idaho
changed the law so that insanity was no longer allowed as a defense.[2] John Delling, the defendant in this
case, was prevented from using insanity as a defense by that Idaho law. Instead, he would have to prove that he
could not form the intent to commit a crime because he is insane. This will allow the defendant to defend
himself against a charge that requires a specific kind of intent, but not
against other charges. For
example, a defendant may be able to defend himself from being convicted of first-degree
murder, which requires intent, but not involuntary manslaughter, which does
not. The insanity defense, on the
other hand, would have absolved the defendant of criminal responsibility.
Delling was accused of killing two people and deemed competent to
stand trial in February of 2008.[3] He then agreed to a conditional plea,
where he would plea guilty to both killings, but not give up his right to
appeal the Idaho law preventing him from presenting an insanity defense. Delling was sentenced to life in prison
following this plea.
Delling’s main argument is that Idaho’s law preventing him from
presenting an insanity defense is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth
Amendment. The Fourteenth
Amendment guarantees every person due process before their life, liberty, or
property is taken away.[4]
Delling argued that by not
allowing him the opportunity to present insanity as a complete defense, Idaho
deprived him of his due process rights.
The Idaho Supreme Court disagreed, stating that numerous cases
before Delling’s took no offense to the law abolishing the insanity defense in
Idaho. The court also stated that
the United States Supreme Court had several opportunities to state whether
Idaho acted constitutionally when it abolished the insanity defense. Despite these opportunities, the Supreme
Court has never said whether or not a state must allow a defendant to pose an
insanity defense. In fact in
footnote twenty in Arizona v. Clark,
the Supreme Court specifically acknowledged that it had never weighed in on
this question.[5] That footnote stated the Court did not
need to address that question in Clark
and left the issue for another time.
The Court was very careful not to state how it would ultimately
reach such a question. The fact
that the Supreme Court felt the need to acknowledge that there may be a
constitutional issue when some states abolish the insanity defense should mean
that the Court would eventually grant certiorari to address the issue. All Delling can ask now is whether the
Court is ready to address that question in his case.
But regardless of how the Court ultimately decides whether states
can abolish the insanity defense, the Court should hear Delling’s case. Some states now allow the insanity
defense, while others do not.
Someone who commits a crime in Idaho will not have the same defenses
available as if he committed that crime in another state. This creates a discrepancy of justice across state
lines. While laws in one state are
frequently different than laws in another state, this is a question of what is
constitutionally allowed. If the
Court decides that states are allowed to abolish the insanity defense, at least
other states will have a choice to make.
Right now those states may be waiting on the Court to offer guidance.
Conversely, if the Court decides that
abolishing the insanity defense is unconstitutional, there are people in jail
in Idaho right now who might not need to be there. The insanity defense involves whether a person could be held
accountable for his actions; if the Court agrees that the insanity defense
cannot be abolished, it should apply its decision retroactively. Defendants who were not responsible for
their actions should not stay locked away simply because they committed a crime
before the Supreme Court addressed this question. If the ruling would apply retroactively, this is all the
more reason that the Court should hear Delling’s case now. Otherwise, state courts will have to
hold more retrials to see if a defendant was criminally insane at the time of
their actions. The Court should
grant certiorari in Delling to decide
this question.
Bonnie Lindemann
Blogger, Criminal Law Brief
Image by: Phil Roeder
[2] http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
[3] http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/delling%2036920.pdf
[4] http://law.justia.com/codes/idaho/2005/18ftoc/180020007.html
[5] http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/delling%2036920.pdf
chandigarh Escorts Models are india's unique Luxury Boutique Escort administration, giving Chandigarh Escorts, custom-made to the requirements of select gathering of first class men of their word of differentiation.
ReplyDeleteFor More Information, Visit Us:-
Chandigarh Escorts
call girl in chandigarh
Chandigarh Escorts service
Escorts service in chandigarh
Chandigarh call girl