Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1986–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Carpentergreen2 sentences2026As the majority explains, “Because diminished capacity is necessarily distinct from the affirmative defense of legal insanity, the Legislature’s codification of the legal-insanity defense has no bearing on the admissibility of diminished-capacity evidence.” The error of this Court’s statutory interpretation in People v Carpenter, 464 Mich 223 ; 627 NW2d 276 (2001), resulted from the failure to recognize the distinction between diminished- capacity evidence and the affirmative defense of legal insanity. 2026As the majority explains, “Because diminished capacity is necessarily distinct from the affirmative defense of legal insanity, the Legislature’s codification of the legal-insanity defense has no bearing on the admissibility of diminished-capacity evidence.” The error of this Court’s statutory interpretation in People v Carpenter, 464 Mich 223 ; 627 NW2d 276 (2001), resulted from the failure to recognize the distinction between diminished- capacity evidence and the affirmative defense of legal insanity. | 1 | 3 |
Bethea v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2026For example, are defendants required to adhere to the notice and evidentiary requirements of the legal-insanity defense? 56 In holding that the diminished-capacity defense comes within the statutory definition of legal insanity, the Mangiapane Court held that the defendant was required to comply with all the notice requirements of MCL 768.20a, specifically that the defendant must provide notice at least 30 days prior to trial if he intends to assert the diminished-capacity defense and must sit for a psychiatric examination as ordered by the court. 57 Now that diminished capacity is again avail | 1 | 1 |
People v. Mangiapanegreen2 sentences2026But there is more. 27 Carpenter, 464 Mich at 237 (emphasis added). 28 People v Mangiapane, 85 Mich App 379, 395 ; 271 NW2d 240 (1978) (emphasis added). 11 The majority opinion also cites People v Denton, which applied the procedural requirements of asserting a legal-insanity defense to the defense of diminished capacity. 29 And again, the majority opinion cites People v Anderson, which expressly stated that “[t]here is no statutory definition of diminished capacity. 2026But there is more. 27 Carpenter, 464 Mich at 237 (emphasis added). 28 People v Mangiapane, 85 Mich App 379, 395 ; 271 NW2d 240 (1978) (emphasis added). 11 The majority opinion also cites People v Denton, which applied the procedural requirements of asserting a legal-insanity defense to the defense of diminished capacity. 29 And again, the majority opinion cites People v Anderson, which expressly stated that “[t]here is no statutory definition of diminished capacity. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Yost
green
2 sentences2019Absent a legal insanity defense, a defendant may not “present evidence of some mental abnormality to negate the specific intent required to commit a particular crime.” Yost, 278 Mich App at 354 , citing Carpenter, 464 Mich at 232 . 2019Absent a legal insanity defense, a defendant may not “present evidence of some mental abnormality to negate the specific intent required to commit a particular crime.” Yost, 278 Mich App at 354 , citing Carpenter, 464 Mich at 232 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Wilcox
green
1 sentence2026For example, are defendants required to adhere to the notice and evidentiary requirements of the legal-insanity defense? 56 In holding that the diminished-capacity defense comes within the statutory definition of legal insanity, the Mangiapane Court held that the defendant was required to comply with all the notice requirements of MCL 768.20a, specifically that the defendant must provide notice at least 30 days prior to trial if he intends to assert the diminished-capacity defense and must sit for a psychiatric examination as ordered by the court. 57 Now that diminished capacity is again avail | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Lemmon
green
1 sentence2020The panel should have analyzed whether the verdict constituted a miscarriage of justice or whether the interests of justice require a new trial to be ordered in light of the “whole body of proofs,” Lemmon, 456 Mich at 634 - 635, 638, notwithstanding its sufficiency finding on the “conforming conduct to the requirements of the law” prong of legal insanity.1 As part of that inquiry, the panel should have taken a broader view and analyzed both prongs of the defendant’s legal-insanity defense. 1 The panel’s cursory treatment of the great-weight argument is easier to understand given the defendant’ | 1 | 2020–2020 |
People v. Grant
green
1 sentence2019Grant, 470 Mich at 485 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
People v. Denton
green
2 sentences1986On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred by rejecting her diminished capacity defense because (1) the court improperly placed the burden of proof on defendant to show diminished capacity, rather than recognizing that the prosecutor had to prove normal capacity beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the prosecutor did not prove defendant’s normal capacity beyond a reasonable doubt. *5 In People v Denton, 138 Mich App 568 ; 360 NW2d 245 (1984), a panel of this Court, relying on People v Murphy, 416 Mich 453 ; 331 NW2d 152 (1982), held that once a defendant presents evidence of diminis 1986On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred by rejecting her diminished capacity defense because (1) the court improperly placed the burden of proof on defendant to show diminished capacity, rather than recognizing that the prosecutor had to prove normal capacity beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the prosecutor did not prove defendant’s normal capacity beyond a reasonable doubt. *5 In People v Denton, 138 Mich App 568 ; 360 NW2d 245 (1984), a panel of this Court, relying on People v Murphy, 416 Mich 453 ; 331 NW2d 152 (1982), held that once a defendant presents evidence of diminis | 1 | 1986–1986 |
People v. Murphy
green
2 sentences1986On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred by rejecting her diminished capacity defense because (1) the court improperly placed the burden of proof on defendant to show diminished capacity, rather than recognizing that the prosecutor had to prove normal capacity beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the prosecutor did not prove defendant’s normal capacity beyond a reasonable doubt. *5 In People v Denton, 138 Mich App 568 ; 360 NW2d 245 (1984), a panel of this Court, relying on People v Murphy, 416 Mich 453 ; 331 NW2d 152 (1982), held that once a defendant presents evidence of diminis 1986On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred by rejecting her diminished capacity defense because (1) the court improperly placed the burden of proof on defendant to show diminished capacity, rather than recognizing that the prosecutor had to prove normal capacity beyond a reasonable doubt; and (2) the prosecutor did not prove defendant’s normal capacity beyond a reasonable doubt. *5 In People v Denton, 138 Mich App 568 ; 360 NW2d 245 (1984), a panel of this Court, relying on People v Murphy, 416 Mich 453 ; 331 NW2d 152 (1982), held that once a defendant presents evidence of diminis | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.