Reference no: EM133732435

Respond to post 1 and 2

Post 1. As a defense attorney in California, I would consider several potential defenses, such as involuntary intoxication, temporary insanity, and maybe an insanity defense.

The best defense strategy for this case would would be involuntary intoxication. Under California law, involuntary intoxication is a defense to a criminal charge if it negates the mental state required for the crime (People v. Velez, 1985). Since the defendant unknowingly took Ambien, a sedative, instead of his prescribed antidepressants due to intentional acts by the wife.

California Penal Code 26 covers people who are capable of committing crimes. It states that persons who committed the act charged without being conscious thereof are not capable of committing crimes (California Legislative Information, n.d.). Ambien is known to cause strange sleep behaviors, including sleep-walking and performing actions without full consciousness or memory (Food and Drug Administration, 2019).

There are several things needed to begin to this defense and they center around evidence. There needs to be some sort of proof of the wife replacing the medication is necessary. There needs to be undeniable evidence that there was actually Ambien in the defendants system to support this defense. The defense needs to have experts prepared to testify to the levels of Ambien in the toxicology reports and their effects on the human body. This will help the court see the totality of the defendants state of mind from the pre-existing concerns regarding his depression and other medications.

People v. Chaffey (1994) is a case law supporting this defense, where the California Court of Appeal held that involuntary intoxication could negate the specific intent required for attempted murder.

Given Mack''s diagnosed depression and the emotional trauma of learning about his wife''s affair, a temporary insanity defense could be considered. According to People v. Kelly, 1973, temporary insanity is treated the same as permanent insanity for legal purposes in California.

To pursue this defense, we would need to prove that at the time of the act, due to mental disease or defect, Mack was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his act or of distinguishing right from wrong (California Penal Code Section 25).

For this defense, I would need evidence of severe emotional distress following the revelation of the affair. The defendant may need to testify for this. Then an expert in psychiatry would need to testify about how depression, combined with the emotional shock, could lead to a temporary break from reality. The general history of the defendants non-violent history would also be useful.

Food and Drug Administration. (2019). FDA adds Boxed Warning for risk of serious injuries caused by sleepwalking with certain prescription insomnia medicines.

People v. Chaffey, 25 Cal. App. 4th 852 (1994).

People v. Kelly, 10 Cal. 3d 565 (1973).

People v. Skinner, 39 Cal. 3d 765 (1985).

People v. Velez, 175 Cal. App. 3d 785 (1985).

Post 2: In the case of Mack, who has been arrested for attempting to murder his wife, Carrie, several legal defenses may be applicable given his mental health history and the circumstances surrounding the incident. I will explore potential defenses, including insanity, diminished capacity, involuntary intoxication, and self-defense. Additionally, I will discuss how additional facts, such as a diagnosis of schizophrenia, might impact the viability of these defenses.

Insanity Defense

The insanity defense is a legal concept that excuses criminal conduct if, at the time of the offense, the defendant lacked the capacity to understand the nature and quality of the act or to distinguish right from wrong due to a severe mental illness or defect.1 In California, the insanity defense is governed by the M''Naghten Rule, which states that a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if, at the time of the offense, they did not understand the nature and quality of the act or did not understand that the act was wrong.2

In Mack''s case, his diagnosis of serious depression and the alleged replacement of his antidepressants with Ambien may be relevant to an insanity defense. If Mack can demonstrate that he was suffering from a severe mental illness such as psychosis ( e.g. due to bipolar disorder) at the time of the offense and that this illness prevented him from understanding the nature and quality of his actions or from distinguishing right from wrong, he may be able to assert the insanity defense.

Diminished Capacity Defense

The diminished capacity defense is a legal concept that allows a defendant to argue that their mental state at the time of the offense was such that they could not form the specific intent required for the crime charged.3 In California, the diminished capacity defense can be used to reduce a charge from attempted murder to a lesser offense, such as assault, if the defendant can demonstrate that their mental state at the time of the offense was impaired.4

In Mack''s case, his depression and the alleged replacement of his antidepressants with Ambien may be relevant to a diminished capacity defense. If Mack can demonstrate that his mental state at the time of the offense was impaired due to his depression and the effects of the Ambien, he may be able to successfully argue that he did not have the specific intent required for attempted murder.

Involuntary Intoxication Defense

The involuntary intoxication defense is a legal concept that allows a defendant to argue that they were involuntarily intoxicated at the time of the offense and that this intoxication prevented them from forming the requisite mental state for the crime charged.5 In California, the involuntary intoxication defense can be used to negate the mental state required for the crime charged.6

In Mack''s case, if he can demonstrate that he was involuntarily intoxicated due to the alleged replacement of his antidepressants with Ambien, he may be able to successfully argue that he did not have the requisite mental state for attempted murder.

Self-Defense

The self-defense doctrine allows a defendant to argue that their actions were justified because they reasonably believed that they or another person was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury and that the use of force was necessary to prevent that harm.7 In California, the self-defense doctrine is governed by the reasonable person standard, which requires that the defendant''s belief and actions be objectively reasonable under the circumstances.8

In Mack''s case, if he can demonstrate that he reasonably believed that he or another person was in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury due to Carrie''s actions or statements, he may be able to successfully argue that his actions were justified in self-defense.

Additional Facts from forensic psychology perspective

If Mack were to be diagnosed with schizophrenia, this additional fact could significantly impact the viability of his insanity defense. Schizophrenia is a severe mental illness that can cause delusions, hallucinations, and disorganized thinking, which may prevent a person from understanding the nature and quality of their actions or from distinguishing right from wrong.9 If Mack were diagnosed with schizophrenia, this diagnosis could provide strong support for an insanity defense.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Mack''s case presents several potential legal defenses, including insanity, diminished capacity, involuntary intoxication, and self-defense. The viability of these defenses will depend on the specific facts of the case, including Mack''s mental health history.