Case Study Of Clark V. Arizona, 548 US

Under Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-502, does Aaron Wilson, 1) suffer from a mental disease or defect at the time of the incident, and 2) know right from wrong at the time of the incident; and will therefore be found guilty except insane?
A.R.S § 13-502 states “a person may be found guilty except insane if at the time of the commission of the criminal act, the person was afflicted with a mental disorder or defect of such severity that the person did not know the criminal act was wrong.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-502 (West 2009). Also, cognitive capacity is considered to be a subpart of moral incapacity meaning if a defendant knows what he is doing, he is able to determine right from wrong. Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735, (2006). Moreover, “wrong”

Clark, 548 U.S. at 740. In Clark, defendant shot and killed a police officer, thinking aliens were attacking him and suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. Id. at 735. A.R.S. § 13-502 initially reflected cognitive capacity as well as a moral capacity elements, later amended to encompass cognitive capacity into moral capacity in 1993. Id. at 736. Clark challenged that amendment, stating minimization of the cognitive capacity element violated due process. Id. at 735. The court ruled that the amendment was constitutional as cognitive capacity was still theoretically part of moral capacity thus rendering Clark’s claim inapt. Id. It is argued that if an individual knows the repercussions of their doing, they are aware of their actions. Id. As the defendant knew his act was wrong, thus knew what he was doing and therefore, was guilty except

Wilson will likely be held guilty except insane due to his inability to comprehend his actions at the time of the incident. This case is similar to Clark, based on both defendants’ unawareness that the actions taking place were wrong at the time they were committed. Like Clark, Mr. Wilson believed the Officers Friday and Smith were a threat, therefore he had to protect himself from them. Police report at 6. Additionally, as the officers addressed Mr. Wilson, he threatened to kill them and referred to them as “terrorist scum.” Police report at 5. This supported that he was not of sound mind and was considered insane at the time of the incident. As a result, because Mr. Wilson did not know his actions were illegal at the time of the occurrence, it is likely that the court will hold him guilty except