Opinion ID: 1893409
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Process of Adjusting the Common Law

Text: The majority opinion citing Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514, 536, 88 S.Ct. 2145, 20 L.Ed.2d 1254 (1968), states that [t]he process of adjustment of the common law, to fit the times, has traditionally been the province of the states. The precise intent behind this statement is unclear, however, it appears to imply that states, rather than this court, should recognize new excuses under common law doctrines. Such an implication is, of course, specious. At the cited page in the Powell opinion, Mr. Justice Marshall is discussing why the United States Supreme Court has not articulated a general constitutional doctrine of mens rea. He points out that the doctrines of actus reus, mens rea, and various excuses, have continually evolved and that if the Supreme Court defined them in constitutional terms, fruitful experimentation in various jurisdictions and the concomitant productive dialogue between law and psychiatry would be halted and forced into a rigid constitutional mold. A careful reading of the Powell opinion makes it clear that there was an intent to encourage, not discourage, experimentation with the common law concept of criminal liability by local courts and by local legislatures rather than merely by legislatures acting alone.