Clark, Eric v. Arizona (06/29/2006)

Questions presented: (1) Whether Arizon'a insanity law, as set forth in A.R.S. sec. 13-502 (1996) and applied in this case, violated Clark's right to due process under the 14th Amendment? (2) Whether Arizona's blanket exclusion of evidence and refusal to consider mental disease or defect to rebut the state's evidence on the element of mens rea violated Clark's right to due process under the 14th Amendment?

BY LINDSAY CLAIBORN, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE

The insanity defense is used in less than one percent of criminal cases, and of those only about one quarter are successful. The U.S. Supreme Court rarely considers cases involving the insanity defense, but in December 2005 it chose to hear one.

In the early morning of June 21, 2000, 17-year-old Eric Michael Clark shot and killed an Arizona police officer at a routine traffic stop. Clark, who had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia before the shooting, believed that his town had been taken over by aliens and that he was being held captive and tortured.

Clark was initially found to be incompetent to stand trial but two years later the trial court reconsidered. Clark was tried for first-degree murder in May 2003. He was found guilty and sentenced to 25 years to life for the officer's death.

At trial both the defense and prosecution were allowed to present evidence concerning Clark's mental state at the time of the crime. However, evidence presented by Clark that illustrated his sense of reality was introduced but could not be considered because of provisions in Arizona law.

The law only allows evidence that is related to proving the defendant did not know right from wrong. In Clark's case, he understood right from wrong but was making that judgment in the context of an abnormal state of reality: He thought he was being tortured by aliens.

In Clark's first trial, the judge found that Clark did not prove that his mental state had prevented him from knowing right from wrong.

In January 2005, the Arizona Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed, finding that Clark "had failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that this disease or defect prevented [him] from knowing that shooting [the officer] was wrong."

Currently, there are no constitutional precedents regarding the use of the insanity defense. The concept has been ingrained in common law since the 18th century in Britain, after which, the courts have left the consideration of a defendant's mental state up to a judge or jury.

The common law insanity defense requires that the defendant not know the nature and quality of the act, or not know that such act is wrong.

In 1981, John Hinckley was found not guilty by reason of insanity in the assassination attempt of then-President Ronald Reagan. This outcome spurred a number of states to tighten or change their laws regarding the insanity defense.

Arizona amended the wording of its insanity defense law in 1993. Arizona law provides that a defendant may be found guilty except if at the time of the crime the mental illness prohibited the defendant from knowing right from wrong. The changed wording excluded the opportunity to prove that a defendant did not know the nature or quality of the act.

David Goldberg, Clark's attorney, said that the facts in the case were not in dispute. He said that Clark was not given a fair opportunity to provide evidence that would have proven mental illness at the time of the crime.

Goldberg argued in his first appeal that it is illogical for the law to say that a person who is deemed legally psychotic can be in touch with reality and can therefore know right from wrong.

The Supreme Court is being asked to address two issues. The first is whether to set a constitutional basis for the insanity defense. The second is whether Arizona law violates a defendant's right to due process. The Court could decide to essentially bypass the issue of the insanity defense and deal only with the contested Arizona law.

Clark's petition to the Court argues that in a case in which everyone agrees that the defendant was psychotic, due process requires consideration of the fact that the defendant did not understand the nature and quality of his acts. This requirement merits the inclusion of all evidence relating to the mental state of the defendant.

In Clark's case, the exclusion of some evidence of mental illness did not make it possible to fully prove that he did not understand the nature and quality of his actions.

In support of Arizona's law, the state's Solicitor General, Mary O'Grady, said that the definition and use of the insanity defense has historically been left to the states to decide.

Randall Howe, one of the attorneys representing the state of Arizona, said, "whether a state needs to have an insanity defense is within the state's policymaking role."

Goldberg said that part of the problem with the Arizona law is that the burden to prove insanity falls on the defendant. But the restrictive wording of the law has made it harder for defendants to provide that proof.

The majority of states put the burden of proof on the defendant. Eleven states leave the burden of proof to the state. Currently, Idaho, Kansas, Montana and Utah have abolished the use of the insanity defense. The issue of abolishing the defense has already come before the Supreme Court. The Court found in 1994 that a state was allowed to abolish such a defense.

Dr. Paul Applebaum of the American Psychiatric Association said that this case offers an opportunity for the Supreme Court to set up some sort of rules or constitutional floor for the issue of insanity to be considered. The American Psychiatric Association was one of the organizations that filed an amicus brief supporting Clark.

The American Psychiatric Association argued in its brief that the Court should declare that categorical exclusion of mental-disorder evidence is unconstitutional.

The amicus brief also claims that "history and overwhelming current practice support a constitutional rule that precludes serious criminal punishment of one who, because of a mental disease, lacked rational appreciation of the wrongfulness of his conduct when engaging in it."

On Dec. 5, 2005, the Court accepted review in the case and allowed Clark to have his case heard without costs.

On June 29, 2006, the final day of the Court's 2005-06 term, a divided Court sided with the state of Arizona, holding that due process does not prohibit Arizona's use of an insanity test stated solely in terms of the capacity to tell whether an act charged as a crime was right or wrong.

Justice David Souter wrote the Court's lead opinion.