Self Defense in a domestic violence incident

Mental conditions and competency of someone with PTSD who used self-defense in a domestic violence incident

Abstract

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has at times been cited in criminal defense arguments to justify matters such as sentence mitigation, self-defense in violent situations, diminished capacity, insanity, and unconsciousness. An examination of U.S. case law (particularly appellate decisions) shows a mixed reception of this argument in the judicial system. PTSD has been recognized in some courts as a valid basis for insanity, unconsciousness, and self-defense, with such courts admitting testimonies given about PTSD as scientifically reliable. Due to this argument, PTSD is a viable defense in the judicial system for domestic violence incidents.

Introduction

PTSD and other related syndromes, such as battered-woman syndrome, have been used to justify defense arguments for self-defense. In these arguments, some basic elements are maintained, such as that the defendant was not the aggressor, the defendant had a valid, reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily injury, the defendant reasoned that the use of force could prevent the potentially dangerous outcomes and that the defendant declined to use more force than necessary to avert the danger. Self-defense cannot be claimed if a defendant uses more force than is necessary to avert a dangerous situation (Berger, McNiel & Binder, 2012). If all the self-defense elements are met in a dangerous situation, this is referred to as perfect self-defense, and the defendant is completely exonerated of all faults. In imperfect self-defense, in which not all the elements are met, conviction on a lesser included offense is typically the result (e.g., manslaughter instead of first-degree murder). This paper, therefore, explores the mental conditions and competency of someone with PTSD who used self-defense in a domestic violence incident by focusing more on legal statutes about sanity.

The assessment of PTSD forensic assessment has been covered by several publications (Sparr & Pitman, 2007; Simon, 2003), which have focused on the importance of systematic diagnosis, the use of standardized measures, independent corroboration of reports, the inclusion of malingering assessment (Munetz & Griffin, 2006), and the measurement of psychophysiological responses to the recollection of traumatic events.

Mental condition

A defendant in a criminal case can enter into a defense of insanity, rape trauma syndrome, or battered woman syndrome (Fioritto, 2016). For any of these defenses, the defendant admits the offense’s action but asserts a lack of guilt due to mental illness. These types of defenses are regarded as excuse defenses rather than justification defenses.

Insanity v. Diminished Capacity

There exist similarities between the insanity defense and the diminished capacity defense in that they both call into question the mental competence of a defendant. However, there are still several distinctions between the two. An insanity defense is a full defense to a crime – which in some states is considered as an equivalent of pleading not guilty – a diminished capacity defense alludes to the offense but pleads to a lesser crime. The diminished capacity defense is used to claim that there was no element of intent to commit a crime. The United States v. Hinckley case is one of the most famous recent uses of the insanity defense during the trial regarding the assassination attempt against then-President Ronald Reagan.

Competency

In a criminal case wherein a defendant enters an insanity defense, it is an important procedural requirement to establish competency. This is following due process requirements which makes a criminal defendant unable to stand trial if deemed legally incompetent. The Supreme Court’s opinion in Dusky v. the United States (1960) states that a defendant is legally incompetent if the defendant is incapable of rationally communicating with his/her attorney and cannot rationally comprehend the proceedings against him/her. A defendant can request at any time for a hearing to establish legal competency by submitting supporting evidence and a psychological evaluation (Munetz & Griffin, 2006). If the defendant is deemed incompetent, the defendant cannot stand trial.

The “M’Naghten Rule”

The first famous legal test for insanity was established in 1843 for the M’Naghten case. Englishman Daniel M’Naghten shot the British prime minister’s secretary upon the belief that the Prime Minister was conspiring against him. The “M’Naghten Rule” was the standard to be used by the jury after listening to the medical testimony from the defense and the prosecution experts. The rule states that a presumption of sanity should exist until the defense can prove that at the time the act of offense was committed, the defendant was suffering from a defect of reason due to a mental illness, as not to be able to discern the nature and quality of the act being committed. If he did know it, the defendant did not know that the act being committed was wrong (“Insanity defense,” n.d.). The M’Naghten rule was recognized as the standard test for insanity in the United States and the United Kingdom and is still used today in almost half of the U.S. states.

The “Irresistible Impulse” Test

Irresistible impulse test centers on the volitional aspect of insanity in contrast to the cognitional-based approach of the M’Naghten test. This test is purposed to provide a way of addressing defendants who can comprehend the wrongfulness of their actions but are incapable of exhibiting self-control due to some mental illness or defect. This is to avoid the conflict created between the tenets of criminal justice and the punishment of an individual who cannot exercise control over his/her actions. Using the Irresistible Impulse Test, a determination of the defendant’s volition to commit the act for which the accusation is levied becomes possible. A jury might realize that a defendant not guilty because of insanity if it can be verified that the defendant had been suffering from a mental disease or defect which caused a compulsion to commit the object offense (“Insanity defense,” n.d.). This test applies to persons suffering from manias and paraphilia.

The Durham Rule (The “Product” Test)

This test was initially a progressive development in the establishment of legal tests for insanity. The Durham rule employed a more qualitative assessment of insanity using scientific psychological evaluations and evidence instead of legal formalisms. This test relies on the testimony given by a psychological expert, and this testimony serves as the basis on which the jury will make a decision. If the professional concludes that the defendant is subject to a mental disease, a decision not guilty due to insanity was usually the verdict given (“Insanity defense,” n.d.). The inadequacies of this test surfaced quickly, and the test was no longer used. A D.C. circuit court that adopted the test in 1954 rejected the same test in 1972 in the Brawner v. United States of America (1972) case. New Hampshire’s State is the only one that still employs a test similar to the Durham rule.

Comprehensive Crime Control Act

In 1984, Congress proposed the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, which President Ronald Reagan signed. Due to this Act, the federal insanity defense now requires a defendant to prove through convincing and clear evidence that “at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts” (18 U.S.C. § 17). This is generally acknowledged as a standard for the defendant to know right from wrong. (“Insanity defense,” n.d.). The Act also details the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 4241, which addresses the sentencing and other provisions for criminal offenders suffering from a mental illness or defect.

(a) Affirmative defense

It is considered an affirmative defense to a prosecution under a federal statute that, at the time of the act’s commission constituting an offense, the defendant was suffering from a severe mental illness or defect and was incapable of recognizing the nature and quality wrongfulness of the act being committed. Mental defect or disease does not otherwise constitute a defense.

(b) Burden of proof

The defendant has the responsibility of proving through clear and convincing evidence the defense of insanity.

Legal precedent

Expert witness testimony on PTSD and other related syndromes is considered relevant information in self-defense claims at the appellate level in different states, particularly in cases of the homicide or attempted homicide of an abuser (the perpetrator of the trauma leading to PTSD). In a New Jersey Supreme Court, State v. Kelly (1984), Mrs. Kelly was charged with the first-degree murder of her husband. The defendant confirmed the killing but claimed that the killing occurred in self-defense. The defense attempted to use an expert witness’ testimony on battered spouse syndrome (but not PTSD) to support the self-defense claim. The defendant had suffered past abuse perpetrated by her husband, abuse which had also occurred at the time of the homicide. The expert witness testimony provided was considered irrelevant by the court and dismissed. The defendant, Mrs. Kelly, was convicted of manslaughter (Berger et al., 2012). The case had been appealed, but the appellate court maintained that the battered spouse syndrome defense was relevant to the self-defense claim. The court stated that the expert witness testimony upholds the defendant’s credibility that she feared for her life and her action was a reasonable response to save her life. The appellate court overruled the trial’s court decision and remanded the case.

In a Florida Court of Appeal case, Rogers v. State (1993), the defendant was convicted of first-degree murder of her boyfriend. The defense attempted to present expert witness testimony on battered woman syndrome as a form of PTSD at the trial. Still, the court dismissed the testimony for not meeting the admission standard. On appeal, the appellate court stated that the expert witness testimony was relevant and met the admission standard. The court recognized that PTSD is commonly accepted as a mental health factor and that an expert witness’s testimony is admissible in Florida courts. The appellate court, in this case, reversed the decision and additionally remanded that the case is put to a trial court for reconsideration.