Opinion ID: 1435461
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Diminished-Capacity Charge

Text: Defendant, as a heroin addict, argues that a claim of diminished capacity in accordance with N.J.S.A. 2C:4-2 constituted his most viable defense to the charges of knowing and purposeful murder. He contends that the failure of trial counsel to have requested the charge was ineffective assistance, and that the failure of the trial court to have given the charge sua sponte constituted reversible error. In the event that the question arises on remand, the trial court should determine whether to submit the question of diminished capacity to the jury based on the principles set forth in our decision in State v. Breakiron, 108 N.J. 591, 532 A. 2d 199 (1987); however, the trial court should be guided by the Chief Justice's memorandum of October 27, 1989, instructing trial courts, in accordance with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Humanik v. Beyer, 871 F. 2d 432, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 57, 107 L.Ed. 2d 25 (1989), no longer to require criminal defendants who raise the defense of mental disease or defect under N.J.S.A. 2C:4-2 to prove the existence of the alleged mental disease or defect by a preponderance of the evidence.