In regard to the mental element (insanity) that may be at issue in a criminal case:
A) requiring the defendant to prove the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence does not violate due process.
B) there is a presumption that the defendant is not sane and the prosecution must prove sanity before introducing any other evidence.
C) all the defendant has to do is claim insanity, thereby placing the responsibility on the prosecution to prove sanity.
D) all courts agree that insanity is an affirmative defense that must be shown by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q31: Although the prosecution has the duty to
Q32: In some instances, the burden of proving
Q33: If "specific intent" is an element of
Q34: If the defendant in a criminal case
Q35: The law regarding the alibi defense differs
Q37: In 1984, as a part of the
Q38: In a homicide case, if the accused
Q39: In federal courts when a defendant pleads
Q40: In the case of In re Winship,
Q41: In the case of Lindsey v. Commonwealth,
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents