Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
16. Which of the following correctly describes the judge's situation?
A state employs the Model Penal Code or American Law Institute test for insanity, and requires the state to prove sanity, when it is in issue, beyond a reasonable doubt. At the defendant's trial for murder, he pleaded insanity. The state put on an expert psychiatrist who had examined the defendant. He testified that, in his opinion, the defendant was sane at the time of the murder. The defendant's attorney did not introduce expert testimony on the question of sanity. Rather, he presented lay witnesses who testified that, in their opinion, the defendant was insane at the time of the murder. At the end of the trial, each side moves for a directed verdict on the question of sanity.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is correct. The burden is on the prosecution to prove the defendant's sanity at the time of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, regardless of the evidence presented (or not presented) by the defense, the judge must determine whether the prosecution alone offered sufficient evidence of the defendant's sanity. If the judge finds insufficient evidence was offered to establish sanity, she may issue a directed verdict for the defendant.
B is incorrect. Although a directed verdict may find a criminal defendant not guilty, the judge may not use a directed verdict to find a defendant guilty. This is because the defendant has the right to face a jury of his peers, even if the judge believes he is guilty. Furthermore, the issue here is whether the prosecution satisfied its burden to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was sane at the time of the murder. The burden is not on the defendant to prove insanity, although he may offer evidence to support that finding. Even if the judge decided that the defendant's witnesses were not believable, the prosecution may still fall short of establishing sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. Directing a verdict for the prosecution based on a lack of evidence offered by the defendant would be inappropriately shifting the burden from the prosecution to the defense.
C is incorrect. The judicial determinations for motions for directed verdict are based on whether the evidence presented meets the minimum requirement that a reasonable jury could possibly find for the state. That determination should not be based solely on whether the witnesses were experts or laypersons, and, if the judge felt that the jury could not possibly find that the prosecution met its burden of proof, she should grant the defendant's motion for a directed verdict.
D is incorrect. The judge is not permitted to grant a directed verdict motion for the state on the basis of an issue that is for the jury to decide. The judge may decide to grant the defendant's motion, however, if she is convinced that no reasonable jury could find that the prosecution established his sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.