| Clark v. Arizona | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 19, 2006 Decided June 29, 2006 | |
| Full case name | Eric Michael Clark v. State of Arizona |
| Docket no. | 05-5966 |
| Citations | 548 U.S. 735 (more) 126 S. Ct. 2709; 165 L. Ed. 2d 842 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Defendant convicted, Coconino County Superior Court, Sept. 3, 2003; affirmed, Ariz. Ct. App., Jan. 25, 2005; review denied, Ariz., May 25, 2005; cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 797 (2005). |
| Holding | |
| 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. The state could also constitutionally limit a defendant's evidence of mental defect to only what is relevant to that insanity test, even when mens rea is an element of the charged crime. Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Souter, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito; Breyer (except Parts III–B and III–C and ultimate disposition) |
| Concur/dissent | Breyer |
| Dissent | Kennedy, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-502(A) | |
Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the insanity defense used by Arizona.
The Court affirmed the murder conviction of a man with paranoid schizophrenia for killing a police officer.
The man had argued that his inability to understand the nature of his acts at the time that they were committed should be a sufficient basis for showing that he lacked the requisite mental state required as an element of the charged crime.
The Court upheld Arizona's restriction of admissible mental health evidence only to the issue of insanity and not to show that the defendant did not possess the required mental intent level necessary to satisfy an element of the crime. Evidence is admissible only to show that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime's commission.
In this case, the defendant knew right from wrong and so he could not qualify under Arizona's insanity defense.