SERIES 3300 NON-CALCRIM DEFENSES
F 3303 Impairment Of Defendant’s Intent And/Or Mental State
TABLE OF CONTENTS
F 3303 Inst 1 (a & b) Physical Trauma May Negate Mens Rea
F 3303 NOTES
F 3303 Note 1 Epilepsy As Defense Theory Even If Crime Did Not Occur During A Seizure
F 3303 Note 2 Defense Theory: Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS)
Return to Series 3300 Table of Contents.
F 3303 Inst 1 (a & b) Physical Trauma May Negate Mens Rea
Alternative a [CC 3400 adaption]:
The prosecution must prove that the defendant committed the charged crime with the required intent and/or mental state. The defendant contends (he/she) did not form the [intent to ____________] [mental state of ____________] because (his/her) mental process was impaired by physical trauma. However, the defendant does not need to prove (he/she) was mentally impaired by physical trauma. If, after considering all the circumstances, including any physical trauma suffered by the defendant, you have a reasonable doubt about whether the defendant formed the required [intent to ___________] [mental state of _________], you must find (him/her) not guilty.
Alternative b:
Evidence has been received regarding physical trauma received by the defendant during or prior to the crime charged [in count[s] ___________]. You may consider such evidence solely for the purpose of determining whether or not the defendant actually formed the intent and mental state elements of the crime charged [in count[s] __________], to-wit __________.
Points and Authorities
This Court Has The Power And Duty To Grant This Instruction Request—[See CALCRIM Motion Bank # CCM-001.]
Right To Pinpoint Instruction Relating Defense Theory To Burden Of Proof—See FORECITE F 315.1.2 Inst 2.
Impairment From Physical Trauma—Prior to 1982 “evidence of diminished mental capacity, whether caused by intoxication, trauma or disease, [could] be used to show that a defendant did not have a specific mental state essential to an offense.” [Emphasis added.] (People v. Wetmore (1978) 22 C3d 318, 323; see also People v. Alvarez (1970) 4 CA3d 913, 918-19 [trauma resulting from a knife wound sustained to defendant’s arm minutes before the killing required sua sponte instruction on diminished capacity].) In 1982, Proposition 8 (PC 25) eliminated the defense of diminished capacity while specifically authorizing the presentation of evidence of mental disease, defect or disorder (PC 28) or voluntary intoxication (PC 22), to prove that the defendant did not actually possess the requisite mens rea required by the charged offense.
Because physical trauma may affect actual formation of the requisite mens rea, such trauma may be viewed as causing a mental defect or disorder within the meaning of PC 28. Moreover, exclusion of evidence and instruction upon a defense theory which negates an essential element of the charge would implicate the defendant’s 6th and 14th Amendment rights to due process, compulsory process, and trial by jury.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 4.010a.
F 3303 NOTES
F 3303 Note 1 Epilepsy As Defense Theory Even If Crime Did Not Occur During A Seizure
Typically recognized defenses such as unconsciousness, insanity, diminished capacity/actuality, and guilty but mentally ill are not thought to apply to epileptic defendants unless the defendant committed the criminal act during an epileptic seizure. However, medical research indicates that an epileptic may experience uncontrollable aggressive impulses between seizures. (See Irma Jacquelin Ozer, “The Epilepsy Defense Reconsidered,” Criminal Law Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 4, July-August 1997, pp. 328-51.)
Hence, epilepsy may be a defense theory even if the crime did not occur during a seizure.
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 4.030a.
F 3303 Note 2Defense Theory: Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS)
An article discussing the importance of investigating and presenting Fetal Alchol Syndrome at trial by Denise Ferry is available to FORECITE subscribers. [Article Bank # A-80.]
CALJIC NOTE: See FORECITE F 4.032 n1.
