Opinion ID: 544359
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedural History Relating to Diminished Capacity

Text: 18 Evidence. 19 As mentioned, appellant first sought a judicial ruling on the admissibility of her diminished capacity defense on February 1, 1988. Appellant explained in her motion that, aside from presenting an insanity defense, she planned to introduce evidence of diminished capacity--not as an affirmative defense, but as an attack on the prosecution's necessary claim that she entertained a specific intent to distribute crack cocaine or enter into a conspiracy to do so. Nowhere in her pleadings or in arguments before the district court, however, did appellant describe the specific nature of this psychological evidence; or how this evidence would provide a legally acceptable theory that she did not intend to distribute crack cocaine. 6 20 On appeal, however, appellant provided a slightly more specific but nonetheless vague explanation of the nature of her diminished capacity evidence: 21 [T]he defense sought to introduce evidence which would demonstrate that defendant's mental condition rendered her incapable of forming the specific intent necessary to commit the crimes charged in the indictment. 22