State v Utter - Case Brief for Criminal Procedure & Law PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief for Criminal Procedure & Law...

Description

State v Utter (Drunk Veteran kills son, no evidence to support Defense) Court of Appeals of Washington, 1971 4 Wash.App. 137, 479 P.2d 946. Facts: - Parties: o Utter: Defendant and Appellant, claims that an integral part of his defense should not have been thrown out of court. o State: Prosecution and Appellee - Procedural History: o The defendant has been accused of murder in the second, but was convicted of manslaughter. He believes an important part of his defense has been wrongfully thrown out and thus, is appealing the lower court’s decision to do so. His victim was his son. - Basis for Dispute: o The defendant believes that his theory of having a “conditional response” is an applicable defense to him not committing a voluntary act of murder. A conditional response is something that is trained into your mind; in this case, due to the fact that he is a WWII Vet, his jungle training has caused him to occasionally commit an act of violence when he feels someone coming up behind him. o The lower court believed that his defense was exactly like another type of defense, mental incapacity, which the courts have consistently dismissed as a justifiable defense. Therefore, the court decided to throw away the defense and make it inadmissible for the jury to hear. Issue: - Whether or not the court should allow the defendants testimony of having a conditional response to be heard in court. Summary of Arguments: - The defendant believes that his “conditional response” should be allowed into court since it caused him to commit an involuntary act against his son. He states that since you must commit a voluntary act in a homicide case, it does not apply to him. Holding: - The court ruled that the defense should not be heard in court and denied the right to present the issue of him being in either an unconscious or hypnotized state. Court’s Reasoning: - The court believes that, yes, the conditional response is not similar to mental capacity, and yes, a defense of an involuntary act that is not mental capacity should be heard, however; there needs to be sufficient evidence for that to happen. There is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to allow the defendant to claim that his conditional response was triggered....