Mon Dec 5, 2005 2:29 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday that it would decide a challenge by a convicted murderer arguing that an Arizona law unconstitutionally limits the use of the insanity defense. His attorney had urged the high court to hear the appeal because the issue affected "a growing number of states that have in the recent past abolished the insanity defense completely or severely limited its application." The attorney said the case presented issues of "national importance."
Eric Clark, who has been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, was convicted of murder for the fatal shooting of a police officer on June 21, 2000, in Flagstaff, Arizona. The shooting occurred after Clark, who was 17 at the time, was stopped by the officer in response to complaints that Clark was driving around a neighborhood in a pickup truck, blaring loud music and disturbing residents.
The trial court found Clark guilty of murder and held that he failed to prove that he was insane at the time of the crime, as required by Arizona law. He was sentenced to life in prison, with eligibility for parole after serving 25 years.
Prosecutors at trial conceded that Clark suffered from mental problems at the time of the crime but offered testimony that he understood right from wrong and therefore was not insane under Arizona law. Clark's attorney, David Goldberg, said in the appeal to the Supreme Court that the Arizona insanity law was unconstitutional because it restricted what evidence can be introduced at trial.
<
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-12-05T192906Z_01_YUE570125_RTRUKOC_0_US-COURT-INSANITY.xml>
(more at link above)