Mr Klobucar Case Summary

Many court cases involve some type of syndrome-based defense, whether it be anything from battered women’s syndrome to Vietnam syndrome to fetal alcohol syndrome to attention deficit disorder. In these cases, the accused tries to use their disease or disorder as a reason to get a not guilty charge. A syndrome-based defense is a defense based on the acceptability of syndrome-related claims. Since syndromes are viewed as diseases or disorders, we might anticipate the development based on other disorders, perhaps Alzheimer’s, alcoholism, or drug addiction.

Other factors that a judge/magistrate must consider in sentencing are those that are aggravating and/or mitigating. Aggravating factors include the nature of the offence – was it violent, with the involvement of weapons or cruelty, was harm inflicted, was it motivated by hatred or prejudice and was it committed in company? Was the victim vulnerable, targeted due to occupation and/or was there multiple victims? Did the offender abuse a position of authority entrusted to them and/or do they have prior convictions? If any of these circumstances are present in the offence, the offender’s sentence will be more serious. Mitigating factors deal more with the nature of the offender – are they of good character without prior convictions? Are they youthful or

It is to be submitted that the proposal of the Law Commission in the 2013 Discussion Paper presents on balance the most fitted approach to non-responsibility defences, since it eradicates the current illogical distinction between ‘insanity’ and ‘automatism’. Under this proposal, the ‘M’Naghten rule’ should be abolished and replaced by a new non-responsibility defence relevant to those cases of ‘total lack of criminal capacity resulting from a recognised medical condition (provided the other criteria of the defence are met) without limiting it to mental disorders’, assuming no culpable fault. The pertinent criminal capacities in this defence are the abilities to make a rational judgment, to comprehend the wrongfulness of a conduct and to have control of one’s body. This general defence would lead to the special verdict ‘not criminally responsible by reason of a recognized medical condition’ and disposal powers may attach. Under the ‘recognised medical condition defence’ the accused would only have an evidential burden and it would be for the prosecution to disprove beyond reasonable doubt that he/she is not criminally liable by reason of a recognised medical condition. Regarding automatism, the common law defence would be abolished and the reformed defence would be

The court must listen to the evidence received by two doctors and their evidence must satisfy the court that the offender is suffering from a mental illness as described under the definition above and that their detention is appropriate for medical treatment to take place. They must also assert the court that appropriate medical treatment is available for the offender and when considering to imposing the above order the courts must also take into consideration the offenders history and character; any other relevant circumstances and any other alternative methods that could be imposed. All other avenues must also be explored before the court makes its final decision. the evidence given by the doctors must ascertain the court that hospitalisation is the most beneficial course of action to take in this offenders case (MHLO, 2010)

The case of Kusmider v. State, 688 P.2d 957 (Alaska App. 1984), was a state appeal’s court case that addressed the chain of causation for a murder, which had occurred, and the actions of the trial court judge (Brody & Acker, 2010). In this case, the appellant, Kusmider, appealed his conviction for second degree murder, based on the fact that the trial judge did not let him introduce evidence, which may have shown that the victim may have survived his wounds, if not for the actions of the paramedics.

While appealing to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, the petitioner argued, “that the trial court erred in failing to disregard the jury’s answer to the mental-retardation special issue and in denying the appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” 270 S.W3d 13 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010). The petitioner argued that “because he introduced expert witnesses to demonstrate mental retardation and the State did not introduce its own expert witnesses in rebuttal, the trial court should have disregarded the jury’s answer to the mental-retardation special issue or granted his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” 270 S.W.3d 13 (Tex. Cr. App. 2010). The Texas court found that the burden of proof to determine intellectual disability fell to the petitioner and that there was “no authority,

Many protesters questioned whether since McVeigh’s trial was so quick does that mean the jury did not look at all the evidence presented? Whether or not someone agrees it does beg the question whether McVeigh's mental status should have been more of a center focus during the trial. There are some issues in McVeigh’s past that lead many people to think he had some mental

Using insanity defense as an available option for criminals to get lesser punishment is a very controversial topic. There are many flaws within this law that should be taken into consideration when deciding if insanity defense should be abolished. Taking into account the strengths and weakness of this topic, it is clear that the insanity defense should most definitely be abolished.

2. According to the opinion, Mrs. Stowers was committed on the strength of the statement of two physicians that she was "mentally ill." Would that evidence be sufficient today to have someone committed involuntarily? If not, what would the evidence have to prove? Why?

Edwards, who was diagnosed with schizophrenia, spent five years restoring competency for his criminal trial (Morris & Frierson, 2008). At his first trial, Edwards requested to represent himself. However, the court denied his request, as he required a continuance to proceed pro se. The first trial resulted in a hung jury (Morris & Frierson, 2008). At the retrial, Edwards requested to represent himself once again.

Ms. Orndorff was examined by two mental health experts before trial and was found that she had a propensity of dissociating emotions and actions from conscious awareness. However, she did not suffer from any mental disorder supporting an insanity defence. Ms. Orndorff introduced a testimony in attempt to establish that she had amnesia after shooting, but she did not purse an insanity defence. Hence, the jury found her guilty of both charges. Even though she presented an evidence of the DID diagnosed after the conclusion of the guilt phase of the original trial, the trial court ruled that even if the jury found that Ms. Orndorff had DID, its presence would not permit the jury to acquit her, because no evidence established that her mental disorder

The appellant’s second submission concerned the way the judge in the first instance referenced sudden and temporary loss of self-control to the jury in the direction. The appellant submitted that this direction was incorrect. He also proposed that the learned Judge’s direction regarding the appellant’s characteristics in an attempt to use the model set by Lord Diplock in DPP v Camplin. The counsel for the appellant criticized the learned judges direction on two grounds: Firstly, that the Judge did not mention that the appellant was suffering from a condition known as the battered woman’s syndrome which so affected her personality that it put her in a state of learnt helplessness. Secondly, that the list of characteristics should have been left open so that the jury may pick up on the fact that she suffered from a

According to the Cornell University Law School’s Legal Information Institute, mitigating factors are circumstances or facts that lessen the severity of a criminal act. These factors may also lessen your culpability in the alleged crime. Under Arizona state law, the following may be considered mitigating circumstances when determining life imprisonment and death sentences:

Mr. Kubryn paid into the system for thirty years, then he retired and began to draw benefits.

I do not allow the evidence to be presented to the jury the defendant caused his state of paranoid schizophrenia by abusing cocaine and methamphetamine. As judge, I cannot make any decision because he has mental illness. Thus, we should put him in hospital for treatment. In this situation, I will defend of him because when he committed this crime, he consider abnormal person. Another thing is that the government must make series rules of using the cocaine or other drugs because they cause many diseases either mental or physical diseases.