Document: 343 U.S. 790 72 S.Ct. 1002 96 L.Ed. 1302 LELANDv.STATE OF OREGON. No. 176. Argued Jan. 29, 1952. Decided June 9, Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, See 73 4. [Syllabus from pages 790-791 intentionally omitted] Mr. Thomas H. Ryan, Portland, Or., for appellant. Messrs. J. Raymond Carskadon, Charles Eugene Raymond, appellee. Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Appellant was charged with murder in first degree. He pleaded not guilty and gave notice his intention to prove insanity. Upon trial Circuit Court Multnomah County, Oregon, he found by a jury. In accordance jury's decision recommend life imprisonment, appellant received sentence death. The Supreme Oregon affirmed. 190 Or. 598, 227 P.2d 785. case is here on appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 1257(2), U.S.C.A. 1257(2). 2 statutes required insanity beyond reasonable doubt made 'a morbid propensity' no defense.1 principal questions this appeal are raised appellant's contentions that these deprive him liberty without due process law as guaranteed Fourteenth Amendment. 3 facts crime were revealed confessions, corroborated other evidence. killed fifteen-year-old girl striking her over head several times steel bar stabbing twice hunting knife. being arrested five days later theft an automobile, asked talk homicide officer, voluntarily confessed murder, directed police scene crime, whether pointed out location body. On same day, signeda full confession and, at own request, another handwriting. After indictment, counsel appointed represent him. They have done so diligence carrying through three courts. 4 One question provides: 5 'When commission act proven, defense sought be established defendant, must proven * *.'2 6 urges statute effect requires defendant pleading establish innocence disproving elements necessary verdict guilty, therefore violative secured To determine merit challenge, viewed its relation relevant place case. 7 conformity applicable state law,3 judge instructed jury that, although degree, they might had committed lesser included charged. further plea put issue every material element degrees homicide, well offense indictment. could returned any verdicts:4 (1) if did killing purposely deliberate premeditated malice; (2) second maliciously, but deliberation premeditation; (3) manslaughter, malice or deliberation, upon sudden heat passion caused provocation apparently sufficient make irresistible; (4) if, after careful consideration all evidence, there remained their minds existence each degree homicide; (5) reason insanity, insane time A finding would freed responsibility possible offenses. which determined murder—required agreement twelve jurors; concurrence only ten members panel.5 8 It apparent been mentally incapable premeditation support intent find either yet legally insane. Although made, prosecution charged, including, premeditation, intent.6 court repeatedly emphasized requirement charge jury.7 Moreover, follows: 9 'I instruct you evidence adduced during defendant's shall considered weighed you, insane, regard ability premeditate, form purpose, deliberate, wilfully, maliciously; lacking such ability, cannot 10 should mental condition affected diseased end formulate plan, design, kill cool blood, has degree.'8 11 These instructions, whole, it clear burden proof guilt, placed squarely State. As told, shift, rested State throughout trial, just as, according presumed innocent until convinced guilty.9 jurors consider separately legal sanity per se—an set apart introduced special decided verdict.10 under here. 12 By statute, originally enacted 1864,11 adopted prevailing doctrine time—that, since most men sane, avoid acts. That rule announced 1843 leading English M'Naghten's Case: 13 '(T)he ought told cases man possess responsible crimes, contrary proved satisfaction; defence ground clearly committing act, party accused laboring defect reason, disease mind, know nature quality f doing *.'12 14 This remains view today.13 nineteenth-century American cases, also, 'clearly' insanity,14 probably followed states 1895,15 when Davis v. United States decided. Court, speaking Harlan, federal prosecutions 'entitled acquittal specific capable crime.'16 reaching conclusion, observed: 15 'The views we expressed supported many adjudications entitled high respect. If fact, felt obligated accept general some above cases; desirable uniformity administration criminal governments whose constitutions equally recognize fundamental principles deemed essential protection liberty.'17 16 obviously establishes constitutional doctrine, such, 17 Today, accused, doubt. Some twenty states, however, preponderance similar measure persuasion.18 While evident distinction between two rules quantum required, see practical difference magnitude significant determining face merely heavier proof. instance, order complete charges preferred, fact practice large number conclusive accords process, plainly worth considering 'offends principle justice rooted traditions conscience our people ranked fundamental.' Snyder Massachusetts, 1934, 291 97, 105, 54 330, 332, 78 674. 18 Nor enforce against right held defendants courts Bill Rights. Davis. States, supra, procedure Oregon. But '(i)ts does run foul Amendment because method may seem thinking fairer wiser give surer promise prisoner bar.' page judicial judgment applying Due Process Clause move within limits accepted notions based idiosyncrasies personal judgment. An important safeguard individual alert deference review.' FRANKFURTER, concurring Malinski New York, 1945, 324 401, 417, 65 781, 789, 89 1029. We reluctant interfere Oregon's determination policy respect say violates generally concepts basic standards justice. 19 Nothing said Tot 1943, 319 463, 63 1241, 87 1519, suggests different conclusion. struck down presumption created congressional enactment. thus rational connection which, operation, resulted guilt neither itself nor seen here, prosecutor Only absolute English-speaking courts, obliged introduce overcome sanity.19 20 contended instructions confused State's proving think juries ordinarily reasonably can be, particularly emphatic. Juries centuries decisions basis facts, law, explained detailing distinctions, placement weight proof, presumptions, meaning intent, etc. condemn operation system generally. prepared do so. 21 Much applies also contention violated providing 'morbid propensity commit prohibited acts, existing mind person, who shown knowing wrongfulness forms therefor.'20 amounts more than legislative adoption 'right wrong' test preference 'irresistible impulse' test.21 Knowledge wrong exclusive majority jurisdictions.22 science pschiatry tremendous strides laid Case,23 progress reached point where learning compel us require eliminate law.24 choice involves scientific knowledge extent responsibility.25 whole problem evoked wide disagreement among those studied it. circumstances irresistible impulse 'implicit concept ordered liberty.'26 22 contends court's refusal district attorney one confessions available before process. substance argument. conclusion buttressed absence assignment error motion new trial. Compare Avery Alabama, 1940, 308 444, 452, 60 321, 324, 84 377. better exhibit confession, failure way denied fair record shows produced There ample both expert witnesses study confession. addition offered purpose refused. indication prejudiced inability acquire earlier access 23 Affirmed. 24 joined BLACK, dissenting. 25 However much conditions improved 1905, William (later Chief Justice) Taft disturbing conviction 'that Union (there exceptions) disgrace civilization' (Taft, Administration Criminal Law, Yale L.J. 1, 11), informed person unhappy about serious defects present-day unthinkable bring book heinous deeply stirs popular sentiment lead legislature State, emotional storms occasion sweep people, enact thereafter indictment following attempted rape, presumptive cast killing. Can go freedom Amendment, fashion penal codes procedures enforcing them? Why so? Because inherited emerged dark barbaric times, conception dominated refused hazard punishment fails remove jurors. duty Gov ernment notion—basic rightly boasts free society—is historic, procedural content 'due process.' Accordingly doubt, I repeat, establishing death another. 26 muscular contraction resulting constitute murder. Even though immediate another's death, deodand forfeited like thing medieval law. Behind culpability turn into 27 tests varying conflicting. echo scepticism uttered Brian, C.J., fifteenth century, 'the devil himself knoweth men' appreciate how vast darkness still envelops man's understanding mind. Sanity incertitude. given conflicting specialists field. Naturally always conflict psychological absorbed contradictory students health particular time. At stage indefensible impose accord depriving liberty, rather culpability, thereby displace test, matter backward light best canons. Inevitably, strong fortyeight States. chosen theory testing deprivation send doom physical events acting culpably. preclude utilizing common sense regarding irresponsibility acts taking granted sane his, devoid begets exceptional situation devise Accordingly, provide various ways dealing requiring, 'insanity' specially pleaded, behalf claim showing enough assumption normally knows what does, tried, standing disinterested agency advise jury, devices used combination. laws forty-eight present greatest diversity relieving affirmatively pulled trigger blow. Such legislation makes inroad innocence, satisfaction 29 For unrecorded inroads requiring namly, contra ction. Like presupposes pay public good course harm. Unlike says satisfy 30 1864. year Code Procedure defined conventional way, provided: *.' General Laws 1845—1864, p. 441 et seq., §§ 502, 204. latter section, revisions, today applied review. 31 Whatever tentative intermediate steps experience permissible aiding ultimate issues relieved, final show-down, accusation. accusation items combination offense. And equation adds up decisive civil liability. exception very limited class variously characterized mala prohibita torts enforcement regulatory measures. Dotterweich, 320 277, 64 134, 88 48; Morissette 342 246, 240. Murder malum prohibitum tort object legislation. suggest oddity imposes mere obliterate 32 suggested terms, including 'premeditation, intent.' Be short sustained 'casts doubt.' Leland, 638, 785, 802. suggest, court, compelled requirement, offend indulged farrago generalities intent,' exact gifts subtlety even judges, let alone juries, possess. International Harvester Co. Kentucky, 234 216, 223 224, 34 853, 856, 58 1284. all, permit hazards. 33 deny mode abuses pleas unedifying spectacles testimony, widest remedies circumventing abuses. multiform evinces great variety experimental methods open them problems defenses repeat extreme reluctance barrier o mouth threadbare phrase. Especially deals local repression punishment. gulf, however narrow, disregard review fallen virtue action. escaped, whatever investing judges power involves. Or.Comp.Laws 26—929, 23—122. Id., 26—929. 26—947, 26—948. Six verdicts listed divided verdicts: with, without, recommendation imprisonment penalty. Since punishment, automatically invoked 23—411. manslaughter. R. 333—334. Ore.Comp.Lws, 23—401, 23—414, 26—933; cf. Butchek, 192 7, 121 141, 253 P. 367, 254 805. 323, 331, 332. 330. Again: your moral certainty, design plan take formed matured blood hastily occasion. acted deliberated malice, factors relating thereto, mentality impaired, bears factors, sider along case.' 324. Comp.Laws 26—846 (requiring show defense); id., 26—955 (providing consequent commitment asylum judge). defining jury: 'In case, capacity . (the girl) alleged killed, satisfied manner therein, then committed.' 327 (emphasis supplied). Deady's Gen.Laws Crim.Proc., Cl. & Fin. 200, 210 (H.L., 1843). Stephen, Digest Law (9th ed., Sturge, 1950), 6; Sodeman King, (1936) W.N. (P.C.); Woolmington Director Public Prosecutions, (1935) A.C. 462, 475. Weihofen, Insanity Defense (1933), 151—155. 'Clear proof' sometimes interpreted mean e.g., De Rance, 1882, La.Ann. 186, Hurst 1899, 40 Tex.Crim. 378, 383, 46 S.W. 635, 50 S.E. 719. Wharton, Evidence ed. 1884), 336 340. 1895, 160 469, 484, 353, 357, 499; Hotema 1902, 186 413, 895, 1225; Matheson 1913, 540, 355, 57 631. 488, 358, 499. Weihofen lists four 'to jury,' combine formulae, 'clearly 'believe' stated last resort, appears follow rule. 148—151, 172—200. Twenty-two mentioned holding accuse least Wigmore, (3d 1940 Supp. 1951), 2501. 161; 1940), Garver, 1950, 291, 225 771; Wallace, 1942, 170 60, 131 222; Hassing, 1911, 81, 118 195. 15, 64—68, 109—147. 200 Fisher 1946, 328 475 476, 66 1318, 1324, 90 1382. Holloway 80 U.S.App.D.C. 3, 148 F.2d 665; Glueck, Mental Disorder (1925); Hall, Disease Responsibility, 45 Col.L.Rev. 677 (1945); Keedy, Harv.L.Rev. 535, 724 (1917). Palko Connecticut, 1937, 302 319, 325, 149, 152, 82 288.

Category: 3