 |
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
| Hendershott v. People | |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
| Full case name | Lee Roy Hendershott, Petitioner, v. The People of the State of Colorado, Respondent. |
| Decided | September 27, 1982 (1982-09-27) |
| Citation | 653 P.2d 385 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Edward E. Pringle, Paul V. Hodges, Robert B. Lee, William H. Erickson, Jean Dubofsky, Luis D. Rovira, George E. Lohr, Joseph R. Quinn |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Quinn |
| Keywords | |
Hendershott v. People, Supreme Court of Colorado, 653 P.2d. 385 (1982), is a criminal case that a defendant who was not excused by being legally insane, might still be exculpated because he lacked a guilty mind (mens rea) due to a mental disease.[1]: 613
In Colorado, Lee Roy Hendershott accused a woman he was dating of being with another man, then struck, kicked, and choked her. He was charged with third degree assault in state court.[1]: 264–268 In Colorado, third degree assault was a general intent crime (involving the act being knowingly or recklessly done), not a specific intent crime (in which the crime is intentionally done).[1]: 264–268 Hendershott's defense attorney attempted to introduce evidence that Hendershott suffered from a mental disorder causing impulse control to counter that defendant had a guilty mind (mens rea).[1]: 264–268 The evidence was excluded because of a statute that evidence of mental impairment short of legal insanity may be offered as bearing on capacity to form a specific intent.[1]: 264–268 Defendant was convicted and appealed.[1]: 264–268
The state Supreme Court reversed and remanded.[1]: 264–268 It reasoned that constitutional due process requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant has a guilty mind (mens rea), and to prove every fact needed to constitute the crime, citing Sandstrom v. Montana and Patterson v. New York.[1]: 264–268 One element is mens rea. Disallowing evidence to rebut a prosecution showing that defendant had the requisite mens rea was an unconstitutional denial of due process.[1]: 264–268 The court distinguished between legislation precluding an affirmative defense, and precluding a rebuttal to showing the element of mens rea.[1]: 264–268
Text of Hendershott v. People is available from: Google Scholar Justia vLex
