Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

State v. Herrera

Supreme Court of Utah
895 P.2d 359 (1995)


Facts

In 1983, Utah eliminated the traditional insanity defense, replacing it with a new statute, § 76-2-305(1), which provided that it is a defense that, “the defendant, as a result of mental illness, lacked the mental state required as an element of the offense charged. Mental illness is not otherwise a defense.” Under the previous law, a defendant was permitted to argue in his defense that he committed an act but did not understand that it was wrong. In contrast, the amended law restricts the defense to the defendant not having the mens rea required by the crime. Herrera and Sweezy (defendants) pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to their crimes and filed motions requesting that the court declare the Utah statutory scheme dealing with the insanity defense unconstitutional. The defendants argued that the statute is unconstitutional on three grounds: (1) it violates federal due process, because it would allow them to be convicted even if they did not know the wrongfulness of their actions; (2) it violates state due process guarantees; and (3) it impermissibly shifts the burden of proving an element of the crime from the prosecution to the defendants.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Howe, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Durham, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Dissent (Stewart, J.)

The dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the dissenting judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.