Criminal Practice – Murder, Attempted Murder & Assault – Specific Intent – Mental Illness

Criminal Practice – Murder, Attempted Murder & Assault – Specific Intent – Mental Illness (access required)

State v. Shareef In support of his plea of diminished capacity, defendant met his burden of production through multiple witnesses, including mental health professionals. Although the state did not present any expert testimony, the state pointed to defendant’s acts before, during, and after the crime as showing that he had the specific intent to kill: the state’s evidence tended to show that defendant targeted the victims he intended to run over, tried to inflict maximum damage on his victims, chased those who evaded him, and sped away from each scene until he identified his next victim. Based on the state’s evidence, a jury could reasonably find that, despite his mental illness, defendant intended to kill his victims.

Login required


You have clicked on a link to information that is exclusive to NC Lawyers Weekly subscribers.

	Email Address: Password:	Already a paid subscriber but not registered for online access yet? For instructions on how to get premium web access, click here. Forgot Password?

Interested in Subscribing?

Start by choosing how you'd like your news delivered.

- Print and Digital -

- Digital Only -

Try North Carolina Lawyers Weekly for a month
for only $39 AND get a free whitepaper:

Exit strategy: a solo and
small-firm lawyer's guide to
the how and when of retirement

Click here to subscribe now.

POST A COMMENT

Comments are closed.

Most Important Opinions

Criminal Practice – ‘Victim’ – Sentencing – Ohio Conviction (access required)

State v. Phillips Since defendant did not object at trial when the trial court referred to the prosecuting witness as “the victim,” he is only entitled to plain-error review. Considering the fact that our courts have on many occasions said that the use of the term “victim” in jury instructions is not an expression of opinion, and considering the horrifying facts of the assault in the instant case, we can discern no prejudicial error as a result of the trial court’s use of the word “victim” to identify the state’s prosecuting witness during its jury instructions.

Criminal Practice – Prisons & Jails – Carrying a Concealed Weapon – Defendant’s Person – Razor Blade – Day Room Table (access required)

State v. Hill Even though the carrying-a-concealed-weapon charge was based on a razor blade stuck to the underside of a table in a day room to which defendant’s access was non-exclusive and out of his control, he had regularly scheduled access to the day room, he had been seated at the table under which the blade was discovered on the same day it was discovered, the blade was one of two taken from a pencil sharpener, and the other blade was found in defendant’s cell.

Criminal Practice – Habeas Corpus – Constitutional – Due Process – Liberty Interest – Parole — MAPP Agreement (access required)

State v. Leach : Although the defendant-prisoner alleged that his Mutual Agreement Parole Program contract required his release if he complied with the conditions set out in that document, he failed to attach the complete MAPP contract to his habeas application.