Opinion ID: 849242
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Diminished Capacity Defense

Text: As defined by our Court of Appeals, the so-called diminished capacity defense allows a defendant, even though legally sane, to offer evidence of some mental abnormality to negate the specific intent required to commit a particular crime. See, e.g., People v. Jones, 151 Mich.App. 1, 5-6, 390 N.W.2d 189 (1986). [T]he theory is that if because of mental disease or defect a defendant cannot form the specific state of mind required as an essential element of a crime, he may be convicted only of a lower grade of the offense not requiring that particular mental element. Chestnut v. State, 538 So.2d 820, 822 (Fla., 1989) (citation omitted). This Court has several times acknowledged in passing the concept of the diminished capacity defense. See, e.g., People v. Lloyd, 459 Mich. 433, 590 N.W.2d 738 (1999) (holding that defense counsel was not constitutionally ineffective for presenting a diminished capacity defense as opposed to a defense of legal insanity); People v. Pickens, 446 Mich. 298, 521 N.W.2d 797 (1994) (holding that the defendant was not prejudiced by counsel's failure to pursue a diminished capacity defense); People v. Griffin, 433 Mich. 860, 444 N.W.2d 139 (1989) (remanding for a hearing on the defendant's claim that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to explore defenses of diminished capacity and insanity). However, we have never specifically authorized its use in Michigan courts. Instead, it was our Court of Appeals, in People v. Lynch, 47 Mich.App. 8, 208 N.W.2d 656 (1973), that introduced to Michigan the diminished capacity defense. The defendant in Lynch was charged with having murdered her baby by starvation. As part of her defense, the defendant sought to have admitted into evidence testimony from two psychiatrists supporting her claim that she did not possess the requisite intent to be convicted of first-degree murder, M.C.L. § 750.316. The trial court refused to admit the evidence on the ground that the defendant had never raised an insanity defense and did not give the required statutory notice. [6] In reversing the defendant's jury conviction, the Court of Appeals rejected the prosecution's argument that allowing evidence of mental illness less than insanity as bearing on the defendant's capacity to from the intent required to commit a particular crime would sanction a subterfuge avoiding the standards of the insanity defense enunciated by this Court in People v. Durfee, 62 Mich. 487, 29 N.W. 109 (1886). [7] The Court also disagreed that recognizing a diminished capacity defense separate from legal insanity would permit the defense to in effect sneak in the insanity defense without labeling it as such and without the necessity of complying with the notice statute as to the insanity defense. Lynch, supra at 20, 208 N.W.2d 656. While it acknowledged that some states viewed mental capacity as an all or nothing matter and that only insanity ... negates criminal intent, the Court of Appeals concluded that proof of diminished capacity is admissible as bearing on intent generally or at least on those special states of mind where a specific intent is required or whether the state of mind by definition determines the degree of offense as here. Id. In People v. Mangiapane, 85 Mich.App. 379, 271 N.W.2d 240 (1978), the Court of Appeals had occasion to address the diminished capacity concept under the current statutory framework established by 1975 PA 180. In Mangiapane, the defendant sought to introduce psychiatric testimony on the issue of his capacity to form the specific intent to commit assault with intent to commit murder in violation of M.C.L. § 750.83. The trial court denied the request on the ground that the defendant did not raise the defense and give the prosecution notice under M.C.L. § 768.20a. The Court of Appeals affirmed, explaining that, by enacting 1975 PA 180, the Legislature intended to bring under one procedural blanket all defenses to criminal charges that rest upon legal insanity as defined in the statute, and that the defense known as diminished capacity comes within th[e] codified definition of legal insanity. Id. at 394-395, 271 N.W.2d 240. Thus, the Court held that, in order to introduce evidence that, although not legally insane, the defendant lacked mental capacity to form specific intent, the defendant had to fully comply with the statutory insanity defense provisions. Id. at 395-396, 271 N.W.2d 240. The Court of Appeals decision in Mangiapane was then followed by a series of decisions continuing to address diminished capacity defense as a form of the statutory insanity defense. See, e.g., People v. Denton, 138 Mich.App. 568, 360 N.W.2d 245 (1984); People v. Anderson, 166 Mich.App. 455, 421 N.W.2d 200 (1988). Consistent with this line of cases, the Court of Appeals held that a defendant seeking to present a diminished capacity defense bears the burden of establishing such a defense by a preponderance of the evidence under M.C.L. § 768.21a(3), which took effect on October 1, 1994. Defendant challenges that holding, arguing that nothing in the language of § 21a suggests a legislative intent to place on defendants the burden of proving diminished capacity. We agree with defendant that there is no indication in § 21a that the Legislature intended to make diminished capacity an affirmative defense. However, that is only because, as explained below, the Legislature's enactment of a comprehensive statutory scheme concerning defenses based on either mental illness or mental retardation demonstrates the Legislature's intent to preclude the use of any evidence of a defendant's lack of mental capacity short of legal insanity to avoid or reduce criminal responsibility by negating specific intent.