United States v. Brawner case brief

 

United States v. Brawner: The court considered whether mental health evidence should be admissible apart from its bearing on the issue.

• Expert testimony as to a defendant’s abnormal mental condition may be considered as tending to show, in a responsible way, that defendant did not have the specific mental state required for a particular crime or degree of crime even though he was aware that his act was wrongful and was able to control it, and hence was not entitled to complete exoneration.
• When a statute establishing different degrees of murder requires deliberate premeditation in order to constitute murder in the first degree, the question of whether the accused is in such a condition of mind, by reason of drunkenness or otherwise, as to be capable of deliberate premeditation, necessarily becomes a material subject of consideration by the jury. Hopt v. Utah.
• An offense like premeditated or deliberate murder requires a specific intent that cannot be satisfied merely by showing that defendant failed to conform to an objective standard.
• The Brawner rule allows D, even though legally sane, to present psychiatric testimony as to his abnormal mental condition (diminished capacity) to show that he did not have the specific mental state required to commit the crimes with which he stands charged.