Affirmative Defenses in Criminal Cases in Texas: Part I of VII

Originally published by Benson Varghese.

Affirmative Defenses in Criminal Cases in Texas

Part I of VII

While the State can prove that a person is guilty if it proves that a person committed an act prohibited by law and, if applicable, had the requisite mental state to do so, there are times when we as a society have decided that the person should not be held responsible for that action. The most common justifications have been codified as “affirmative defenses.”

In Texas, a defendant who is facing prosecution has the option of pleading an affirmative defense if the facts support it. An affirmative defense, found in Chapters 8 and 9 of the Texas Penal Code, allow a defendant to avoid legal responsibility for the charged offense. When a defendant pleads an affirmative defense, the defendant is admitting guilt. However, the affirmative defense provides an excuse or justification for why the action transpired. An affirmative defense has the ability to mitigate the legal consequences of an unlawful action. Affirmative defenses include the following:

• Insanity
• Mistake of Fact
• Mistake of Law
• Intoxication
• Duress
• Entrapment
• Age

Insanity as a Defense in Criminal Cases in Texas

Texas follows the M’Naghten Rule when testing legal insanity. This test focuses on whether the defendant comprehends right from wrong at the time the offense was committed. A defendant may plead the insanity defense if the facts surrounding the event provide that mental illness prevented the defendant from understanding that his/her actions were of a wrongful nature.

“The purpose of the insanity defense issue is to determine whether the accused should be held responsible for the crime, or whether his mental condition will excuse him from responsibility.”‖ Graham v. State, 566 S.W.2d 941, 948 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

The insanity defense, and the requirements to raise the defense, is codified in Texas Penal Code Section 8.01:

Insanity
(a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not know that his conduct was wrong.
(b) The term “mental disease or defect” does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

Burden of Proof for the Insanity Defense

The defendant has the burden of production and persuasion when pleading insanity. The defendant must prove the affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence standard.  That is because there is essentially a presumption that a person is sane so there is not reason for the State to put on evidence of his/her sanity to start. The defense may raise the issue of insanity through lay  or expert testimony. The defense only has to raise this evidence by eliciting testimony that proves by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant was insane at the time of the offense.

Proving insanity by a preponderance of evidence means that the defense only has to show that it was “more likely than not” that the defendant was insane at the time of the offense.

Burden Shifting in Texas Insanity Cases

If the defense proves, by a preponderance of evidence, that the defendant was guilty at the time of the offense, the State can only prevail if the State can prove the defendant’s sanity with proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See Manning v. State, 730 S.W.2d 744, 748-49 (Tex.Crim.App. 1987).

An Exception to the Defense Burden to Prove Insanity

In the rare situation where a court has issued a prior adjudication of insanity, and that adjudication has not been set aside, a presumption of insanity exists and the State must prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Attorneys need to be aware that Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 46C.051-.052 requires that notice of an intention to offer evidence of the insanity defense should be filed with the court. In addition, attorneys should certify that such notice has been furnished to the prosecutor on the case.

(1) At least 20 days prior to the date the case is set for trial; or
(2) If the court sets a pretrial hearing before the twenty-day period, the defendant shall give notice at the hearing.

If these requirements are not followed, evidence of insanity will not be admissible unless the court finds that good cause exists for failure to give notice.

If a friend or loved one is facing criminal charges in Texas and you are looking for a lawyer to defend them in court, call the experienced criminal defense attorneys at Varghese, Summersett & Smith, PLLC at (817) 203-2220.

The post Affirmative Defenses in Criminal Cases in Texas: Part I of VII appeared first on Fort Worth Criminal Defense Attorney DWI Attorney Civil and Family Lawyers.

Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.

from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/1GqMZXG
via Abogado Aly Website