Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Searcy

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided September 5, 1990No. 17835Published

1DissentMcDEVITT, Justice

I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion that the due process guarantee of the United States Constitution does not require the availability of the insanity defense in a criminal case.

In support of its conclusion, the majority opinion implies that the statute abolishing the defense in Idaho was previously upheld by this Court in State v. Beam, 109 Idaho 616, 710 P.2d 526 (1985), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1153, 106 S.Ct. 2260, 90 L.Ed.2d 704 (1986). However, the holding in Beam is not relevant to the present case. In Beam, this Court held that I.C. § 18-207 did not violate the principle of…

2Cases cited106 opinions

  1. In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  2. Duncan v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  3. Mullaney v. WilburSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Ake v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
  5. Penry v. LynaughSupreme Court of the United States · 1989

101 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API