What defense might have been presented if specific intent had been at issue at the time of the killing?

California, United States of America


The following excerpt is from People v. Nottingham, 172 Cal.App.3d 484, 221 Cal.Rptr. 1 (Cal. App. 1985):

Although the method of killing in this case points strongly to the existence of a specific intent to kill, we cannot speculate as to what defense might have been presented if specific intent to kill on the part of the perpetrator at the time of the killing had been in issue before the jury. Any defense of diminished capacity in regard to a specific intent to kill was neither developed nor argued. There may have been no evidence to support such a mitigation defense in regard to an intent to kill issue, but we cannot assume on this record that none exists. (People v. Turner (1984) 37 Cal.3d 302, 328, 208 Cal.Rptr. 196, 690 P.2d 669.)

Other Questions


Is there a specific intent for a non-specific-intent crime? (California, United States of America)
Is the intent of an aider and abettor to facilitate the commission of a specific intent crime necessarily the intent to achieve a future consequence? (California, United States of America)
What is the impact of a defense counsel's decision to concede intent to kill and dispute intent to torture? (California, United States of America)
Is it a federal error that crime requires general not specific intent rather than specific intent? (California, United States of America)
Is a jury's instruction that a crime requires specific intent not specific intent invalidating a defendant's due process under the US Constitution? (California, United States of America)
Is there any case law where defense counsel asked an expert whether the killing at issue might have been committed in a rage? (California, United States of America)
Does the Attorney General have to issue a reversal of a finding of intent under section 11379 of the California Highway Traffic Code where he omitted the specific intent to sell methamphetamine from the relevant inquiry? (California, United States of America)
Does a primary intent to kill a specific target need to be considered concurrent? (California, United States of America)
Does the mental state of believing it is necessary to act in self-defense need to be interpreted as a specific intent? (California, United States of America)
How have defense counsel in a murder case argued that there was intent to kill regardless of the identity of the accused? (California, United States of America)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.