Hendershott v. People | |
Court: | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Full Name: | Lee Roy Hendershott, Petitioner, v. The People of the State of Colorado, Respondent. |
Citations: | 653 P.2d 385 |
Judges: | Edward E. Pringle, Paul V. Hodges, Robert B. Lee, William H. Erickson, Jean Dubofsky, Luis D. Rovira, George E. Lohr, Joseph R. Quinn |
Number Of Judges: | 7 |
Decision By: | Quinn |
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 exculpated because he lacked a guilty mind (mens rea) due to a mental disease.[1]
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 third degree assault in state court.[1] In Colorado, third degree assault was a general intent crime (involving the act being knowingly or recklessly done), not a specific intent crime (in which the crime is intentionally done).[1] 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).[1] 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.[1] Defendant was convicted and appealed.[1]
The state Supreme Court reversed and remanded.[1] 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.[1] 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.[1] The court distinguished between legislation precluding an affirmative defense, and precluding a rebuttal to showing the element of mens rea.[1]