This HTML5 document contains 69 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
dctermshttp://purl.org/dc/terms/
n6https://scholar.google.com/
n5https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/
dbohttp://dbpedia.org/ontology/
foafhttp://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/
n8https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/1982/
n17https://global.dbpedia.org/id/
dbthttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Template:
rdfshttp://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
owlhttp://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#
wikipedia-enhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
dbphttp://dbpedia.org/property/
dbchttp://dbpedia.org/resource/Category:
provhttp://www.w3.org/ns/prov#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
wikidatahttp://www.wikidata.org/entity/
dbrhttp://dbpedia.org/resource/

Statements

Subject Item
dbr:Hendershott_v._People
rdfs:label
Hendershott v. People
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.
dbp:name
Hendershott v. People
dcterms:subject
dbc:1982_in_United_States_case_law dbc:Insanity-related_case_law
dbo:wikiPageID
51910119
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
1081210323
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbr:Defendant dbr:William_H._Erickson dbr:Criminal_case dbr:Robert_B._Lee dbc:1982_in_United_States_case_law dbr:Mental_disorder dbr:Insanity_defense dbr:General_intent dbr:Jean_Dubofsky dbr:Third_degree_assault dbr:Mens_rea dbr:Patterson_v._New_York dbc:Insanity-related_case_law dbr:Joseph_R._Quinn dbr:Mental_disease dbr:Specific_intent dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Colorado dbr:Paul_V._Hodges dbr:Exculpate dbr:Sandstrom_v._Montana dbr:Luis_Dario_Rovira dbr:Legal_insanity dbr:Legally_insane dbr:Edward_E._Pringle dbr:Pacific_Reporter dbr:George_E._Lohr
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
n6:scholar_case%3Fcase=11455560206450311760 n8:80sc345-0.html n5:653-p-2d-385-611231634
owl:sameAs
wikidata:Q28455905 n17:2e9c8
dbp:vlex
n5:653-p-2d-385-611231634
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dbt:Infobox_court_case dbt:Caselaw_source dbt:One_source dbt:Rp dbt:Start_date dbt:Orphan dbt:Reflist
dbp:case
Hendershott v. People
dbp:citations
17280.0
dbp:court
dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Colorado
dbp:fullName
Lee Roy Hendershott, Petitioner, v. The People of the State of Colorado, Respondent.
dbp:judges
dbr:Jean_Dubofsky dbr:Joseph_R._Quinn dbr:Edward_E._Pringle dbr:William_H._Erickson dbr:George_E._Lohr dbr:Robert_B._Lee dbr:Luis_Dario_Rovira dbr:Paul_V._Hodges
dbp:justia
n8:80sc345-0.html
dbp:keywords
dbr:Insanity_defense
dbo: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.
dbp:dateDecided
1982-09-27
dbp:decisionBy
Quinn
dbp:googlescholar
n6:scholar_case%3Fcase=11455560206450311760
dbp:numberOfJudges
7
prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikipedia-en:Hendershott_v._People?oldid=1081210323&ns=0
dbo:wikiPageLength
3784
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
wikipedia-en:Hendershott_v._People