Opinion ID: 2218649
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Diminished capacity instruction should be given to jury if any sufficient evidence of the defense exists (Assignment # 8).

Text: In his eighth assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give defendant's requested instruction on the question of defendant's diminished capacity to form the intent necessary to commit murder in the first degree. Such an instruction is not required under our law. In State v. Vosler, 216 Neb. 461, 467, 345 N.W.2d 806, 810 (1984), this court stated: This court said therein [in the case of Starkweather v. State, 167 Neb. 477, 93 N.W.2d 619 (1958)] that a special diminished capacity instruction need not be given where the jury had otherwise been properly instructed that intent was an element of the crime charged. The trial court did not err in refusing to give defendant's requested instruction as to diminished capacity. In the case before us, the court fully instructed the jury on the issues of intent and insanity. Aside from the general instruction on intent, the trial court instructed, in part, as follows: You may consider any evidence received concerning the defendant's mental condition as it bears on the presence or absence of the intent necessary to prove the crime charged. It is for you to determine from all of the facts and circumstances in evidence whether or not each defendant had the criminal intent or purpose [necessary to find the defendant guilty of first degree murder or murder in the second degree.] Defendant's eighth assignment is without merit. VII.  When the Defendant raises the issue of sanity the state should have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was sane at the time of the offense (Assignments # 9 and # 10).  Prior to the trial the defendant filed notice of his intention to rely on insanity as a defense pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. ง 29-2203 (Reissue 1985). This statute provides in pertinent part: Any person prosecuted for an offense may plead that he ... is not responsible by reason of insanity at the time of the offense and in such case the burden shall be upon the defendant to prove the defense of not responsible by reason of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.... Upon the filing of the notice the court, on motion of the state, may order the defendant to be examined at a time and place designated in the order, by one or more qualified experts, appointed by the court, to inquire into the sanity or insanity of the defendant at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. The defendant contends that ง 29-2203 is unconstitutional in that the statute violates the Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections Three, One and Nine of the Nebraska Constitution.... Brief for appellant at 46. The gist of assignments Nos. 9 and 10 is that ง 29-2203 unlawfully shifts the burden to the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he was not responsible by reason of insanity. The defendant sought to limit his culpability on the grounds that he was not responsible by reason of insanity. The jury was instructed that the State had the burden of proving that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime charged against him. Section 29-2203 sets out an affirmative defense to the crime of murder and did not require the defendant to disprove any of the elements of the offense with which he was charged. Defendant cites Davis v. United States, 160 U.S. 469, 16 S.Ct. 353, 40 L.Ed. 499 (1895), which held that the United States, in federal court actions, had the burden of proving that a criminal defendant was sane at the time of the offense. Defendant does not direct our attention to the fact that in 1952, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to apply the Davis rule, which the Court determined to be only the rule to be followed in federal courts, to proceedings in the State of Oregon. Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 797, 72 S.Ct. 1002, 1006, 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952). In the Leland case, the defendant pled not guilty to a charge of first degree murder and gave notice of his intention to rely on insanity as a defense under an Oregon statute which required a criminal defendant to prove his insanity beyond a reasonable doubt. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Oregon statute, noting that so long as the presumption of innocence was maintained and the State was required to prove all the elements of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, a defendant could be required to plead and prove the defense of insanity, where defendant presents the defense as an absolute bar to the crime charged. The Nebraska statute is more favorable to a defendant, since the burden of proof under the Nebraska statute is by a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. In Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 205, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the viability of Leland, when it stated: Subsequently, the Court confirmed that it remained constitutional to burden the defendant with proving his insanity defense when it dismissed, as not raising a substantial federal question, a case in which the appellant specifically challenged the continuing validity of Leland v. Oregon. This occurred in Rivera v. Delaware, 429 U.S. 877, 97 S.Ct. 226, 50 L.Ed.2d 160 (1976), an appeal from a Delaware conviction which, in reliance on Leland, had been affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court over the claim that the Delaware statute was unconstitutional because it burdened the defendant with proving his affirmative defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. See, also, Martin v. Ohio, 480 U.S. 228, 107 S.Ct. 1098, 94 L.Ed.2d 267 (1987), where the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed a decision of the Ohio Supreme Court holding it was not unconstitutional to place the burden of proving self-defense, in a murder charge, on the defendant. In State v. Hankins, 232 Neb. 608, 441 N.W.2d 854 (1989), this court held that ง 29-2203 was constitutional. We continue to so hold in this case. Insofar as defendant contends that ง 29-2203 is unconstitutional in view of the provisions of Neb. Const. art. I, งง 1, 3, and 9, we also determine that ง 29-2203 is constitutional. In Leland v. Oregon, supra , and Patterson v. New York, supra , the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that the Oregon and New York statutes, similar to ง 29-2203, were constitutional. As stated above, ง 29-2203 affords greater protection to a defendant than did Oregon's statute, in that the Nebraska statute places a lesser burden of proof on a defendant. We hold ง 29-2203 as constitutional under the Nebraska Constitution. In the defendant's 10th assignment of error, he contends that ง 29-2203 is unconstitutional in that the shifting of the burden of proof back and forth between the State and the Defendant is so confusing to the jury as to violate the Defendant's Due Process Rights. The defendant fails to cite this court to any authority for this proposition. The contention concerning possible confusion of the jury in determining the distinction between the State's burden of proving premeditation and the other elements of a murder charge and a defendant's burden of proving insanity was also present in the Leland case. On that issue, the Court stated: We think the charge to the jury was as clear as instructions to juries ordinarily are or reasonably can be, and, with respect to the State's burden of proof upon all the elements of the crime, the charge was particularly emphatic. Juries have for centuries made the basic decisions between guilt and innocence and between criminal responsibility and legal insanity upon the basis of the facts, as revealed by all the evidence, and the law, as explained by instructions detailing the legal distinctions, the placement and weight of the burden of proof, the effect of presumptions, the meaning of intent, etc. We think that to condemn the operation of this system here would be to condemn the system generally. We are not prepared to do so. Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 800, 72 S.Ct. 1002, 1008, 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952). We have reviewed the record and find that the instructions herein fully conform to the standards set out in Leland. Potential jurors were informed during voir dire, and the court's instructions provided, that the State was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged. The jury was also instructed that defendant was required to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he was not responsible by reason of insanity. These two burdens were specifically defined by the court in the general instructions to the jury, and the jury was instructed that the burden of proving all the elements of the crime never shifts from the State. The jury was also instructed as to the presumption of defendant's innocence. Section 29-2203 is not unconstitutional under the U.S. or Nebraska Constitution, and the instructions in this case did not violate defendant's due process rights. Assignments Nos. 9 and 10 are without merit.