CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS-BURDEN OF PROVING INSANITY AS DEFENSE TO CRIME

Authors

Lois H. Hambro S.Ed., University of Michigan Law SchoolFollow

Abstract

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder after having pleaded insanity as a defense to the charge. He appealed to the Supreme Court of Oregon, alleging that the Oregon statute, which required an accused pleading insanity to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it placed on him the burden of proving his inability to premeditate and intend the criminal act. The defendant relied in part on the fact that Oregon is the only state requiring insanity to be proved ''beyond a reasonable doubt," while other states require at most that the accused show it "clearly." The Supreme Court of Oregon held that the statute did not violate the due process clause. On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, held, affirmed. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not limit a state's determination of its policy with regard to the issue of insanity as a defense to crime. Leland v. Oregon, 343 U. S. 790, 72 S. Ct 1002 (1952).

Recommended Citation

Lois H. Hambro S.Ed., CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-DUE PROCESS-BURDEN OF PROVING INSANITY AS DEFENSE TO CRIME, 51 Mich. L. Rev. 592 (1953).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol51/iss4/12