About: Hendershott v. People     Goto   Sponge   NotDistinct   Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com associated with source document(s)
QRcode icon
http://dbpedia.demo.openlinksw.com/c/8NnckAXC98

Hendershott v. People, Supreme Court of Colorado, 653 P.2d. 385 (1982), is a criminal case that a defendant who was not excused by being legally insane, might still be because he lacked a guilty mind (mens rea) due to a mental disease.

AttributesValues
rdfs:label
  • Hendershott v. People (en)
rdfs:comment
  • Hendershott v. People, Supreme Court of Colorado, 653 P.2d. 385 (1982), is a criminal case that a defendant who was not excused by being legally insane, might still be because he lacked a guilty mind (mens rea) due to a mental disease. (en)
name
  • Hendershott v. People (en)
dct:subject
Wikipage page ID
Wikipage revision ID
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
sameAs
vlex
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
case
  • Hendershott v. People (en)
citations
court
full name
  • Lee Roy Hendershott, Petitioner, v. The People of the State of Colorado, Respondent. (en)
judges
justia
keywords
has abstract
  • Hendershott v. People, Supreme Court of Colorado, 653 P.2d. 385 (1982), is a criminal case that a defendant who was not excused by being legally insane, might still be because he lacked a guilty mind (mens rea) due to a mental disease. In Colorado, Lee Roy Hendershott accused a woman he was dating of being with another man, then struck, kicked, and choked her. He was charged with in state court. In Colorado, third degree assault was a crime (involving the act being knowingly or recklessly done), not a specific intent crime (in which the crime is intentionally done). Hendershott's defense attorney attempted to introduce evidence that Hendershott suffered from a mental disorder causing impulse control to counter that defendant had a guilty mind (mens rea). The evidence was excluded because of a statute that evidence of mental impairment short of legal insanity may be offered as bearing on capacity to form a specific intent. Defendant was convicted and appealed. The state Supreme Court reversed and remanded. It reasoned that constitutional due process requires the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant has a guilty mind (mens rea), and to prove every fact needed to constitute the crime, citing Sandstrom v. Montana and Patterson v. New York. One element is mens rea. Disallowing evidence to rebut a prosecution showing that defendant had the requisite mens rea was an unconstitutional denial of due process. The court distinguished between legislation precluding an affirmative defense, and precluding a rebuttal to showing the element of mens rea. (en)
date decided
decision by
  • Quinn (en)
googlescholar
number of judges
prov:wasDerivedFrom
page length (characters) of wiki page
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Faceted Search & Find service v1.17_git147 as of Sep 06 2024


Alternative Linked Data Documents: ODE     Content Formats:   [cxml] [csv]     RDF   [text] [turtle] [ld+json] [rdf+json] [rdf+xml]     ODATA   [atom+xml] [odata+json]     Microdata   [microdata+json] [html]    About   
This material is Open Knowledge   W3C Semantic Web Technology [RDF Data] Valid XHTML + RDFa
OpenLink Virtuoso version 08.03.3332 as of Dec 5 2024, on Linux (x86_64-generic-linux-glibc212), Single-Server Edition (378 GB total memory, 72 GB memory in use)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2025 OpenLink Software