Legal Opinion
State v. Burnham
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Decided October 12, 1979PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
POMEROY, Justice.
This case requires us to address for the first time in Maine the issue of whether evidence of an abnormal condition of mind will be admissible to negate the existence of a culpable state of mind when the defendant is also claiming to be excused by reason of “insanity”. 1
Royal Burnham was convicted of a violation of 17-A M.R.S.A. § 208(1)(a) 2 (aggravated assault) despite his pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. Though 17-A M.R.S.A. § 59 makes provision for a bifurcated trial at the option of the accused, a unitary trial was chosen. 3
This appeal seasonably…
2Cases cited23 opinions
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Mullaney v. WilburSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Patterson v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Durham v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1954
- Fisher v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Taylor v. Commissioner of Mental Health & Mental RetardationSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1984
- State v. EstesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1980
- State v. MessierSupreme Court of Vermont · 1985
- State v. CorreraSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1981
- State v. MishneSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.