STATE V. CRENSHAW 98 Wash. 2d 789, 659 P.2d 488 (1983) CASE BRIEF

STATE V. CRENSHAW

98 Wash. 2d 789, 659 P.2d 488 (1983)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Crenshaw (D) appealed from a decision of the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the judgment of the trial court that D was competent to stand trial, that the insanity defense instruction was proper, and that insanity had not been proved. Subsequently, a jury found him guilty.

FACTS: D and his wife were on their honeymoon in Canada. D was deported as a result of his participation in a brawl. He got a motel room in Blaine, Washington, and waited for his wife to join him. When she arrived 2 days later, he immediately thought she had been unfaithful. D took her to the motel room and beat her unconscious. He then went to a nearby store, stole a knife, and returned to stab his wife 24 times. D left and drove to a nearby farm where he had been employed and borrowed an ax. Upon returning to the motel room, he decapitated his wife with such force that the ax marks cut into the concrete floor under the carpet and splattered blood throughout the room. D concealed his actions. D removed the body and borrowed a bucket and sponge from a nearby service station, and cleaned the room of blood and fingerprints. D then spoke with the motel manager about a phone bill, then chatted with him for a while over a beer. D then drove 25 miles and hid the two parts in thick brush. D then drove 200 miles Hoquiam. D picked up two hitchhikers, told them of his crime, and enlisted their aid in disposing of his wife's car in a river. The hitchhikers contacted the police and D was apprehended shortly thereafter. He voluntarily confessed to the crime. D pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. D testified that he followed the Moscovite religious faith, and that it would be improper for a Moscovite not to kill his wife if she committed adultery. D has a history of mental problems, for which he has been hospitalized in the past. The trial court instructed: 'For a defendant to be found not guilty by reason of insanity you must find that, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant's mind was affected to such an extent that the defendant was unable to perceive the nature and quality of the acts with which the defendant is charged or was unable to tell right from wrong with reference to the particular acts with which defendant is charged. What is meant by the terms 'right and wrong' refers to knowledge of a person at the time of committing an act that he was acting contrary to the law.' The jury found him guilty of murder in the first degree.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner