Citation network
Clark Vs. Arizona
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 29, 2006
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Syllabus October Term, 2005 Clark V. ArizonaSearch
-
s decision in State v. MottSearch
-
Patterson v. NewSearch
-
s strength through the kind of evidence and degree of persuasiveness necessary to overcome it, see Fisher v. UnitedSearch
-
of sanity or capacity and therefore excuse a defendant from customary criminal responsibility, see, e.g., Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
law defines it, whether by a preponderance of the evidence or to some more convincing degree. See, e.g., Leland v. OregonSearch
-
Holmes v. SouthSearch
-
dissenting in part. Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Clark v. ArizonaSearch
-
Opinion of the Court Clark V. ArizonaSearch
-
Supreme Court of the United States No. 05-5966 Eric Michael Clark, Petitioner V. ArizonaSearch
-
ruled that Clark could not rely on evidence bearing on insanity to dispute the mens rea . The court cited State v. MottSearch
-
York, 432 U. S. 197 , 202 (1977) (quoting Speiser v. RandallSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
see also Leland v. OregonSearch
-
U. S. 790 , 798 (1952). The claim entails no light burden, see Montana v. EgelhoffSearch
-
see also Foucha v. LouisianaSearch
-
State v. ChavezSearch
-
s second claim of a due process violation challenges the rule adopted by the Supreme Court of Arizona in State v. MottSearch
-
characteristic behavior associated with mental disease, see 187 Ariz., at 544, 931 P. 2d, at 1054 (contrasting State v. ChristensenSearch
-
Ariz. 32, 628 P. 2d 580 (1991), and State v. GonzalesSearch
-
s Point I is and always has been an attack on the rule of State v. MottSearch
-
neither pressed nor passed upon in the Arizona Court of Appeals, we do not consider it. See, e.g. , Kentucky v. StincerSearch
-
Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
s burden to show mens rea . See, e.g. , State v. PerezSearch
-
to a specified degree of certainty (whether beyond reasonable doubt or something less). See, e.g. , Commonwealth v. KeitaSearch
-
see Crane v. KentuckySearch
-
quoting Delaware v. VanSearch
-
quoting Greenwood v. UnitedSearch
-
Naghten standard. State v. SchantzSearch
-
s actions, or control them. Footnote 8 See Queen v. OxfordSearch
-
K. B. 1800). But cf. Queen v. BurtonSearch
-
Footnote 9 E.g. , Parsons v. StateSearch
-
State v. ThompsonSearch
-
s Ohio Rep. 617 (1834). Footnote 10 State v. JonesSearch
-
State v. PikeSearch
-
Stevens v. StateSearch
-
State v. HarmsSearch
-
Finger v. StateSearch
-
Burrows v. StateSearch
-
Malede v. UnitedSearch
-
Commonwealth v. McLaughlinSearch
-
State v. MartinezSearch
-
State v. LockhartSearch
-
State v. HartleySearch
-
State v. MottSearch
-
Fisher v. UnitedSearch
-
Jones v. UnitedSearch
-
Eric Michael Clark, Petitioner V. ArizonaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial