JADM 200 Week 3 Assignment Miller v. State

BUY HERE⬊: JADM 200 Week 3 Assignment Miller v. State – Homeworkmade

JADM 200 Week 3 Assignment Miller v. State

Miller v. State, 991 P.2d 1183 (Nevada 1996)

1. According to Dr. Norton Roitman, a psychiatrist, when Miller killed Goring, he “could not appreciate the nature of his acts and could not recognize the difference between right and wrong.” If Roitman was correct, what legal test for insanity would Miller have met?

2. Dr. Jack Jurasky, a psychiatrist who testified for the prosecution, concluded that Miller’s outburst was of such a violent nature that he could not have appreciated the nature of his actions when he stabbed Goring. If Jurasky was correct, what legal test for insanity would Miller have met?

3. Miller claimed to be sane before and after the killing but insane during the time the crime was committed. His attorneys asked that, at the close of trial, the jury be instructed on the issue of temporary insanity and that they be told that “regardless of its duration, legal insanity that existed at the time of the commission of the crime is a defense to the crime.” Why do you think that the trial court refused to give to the jury the instructions regarding the insanity defense suggested by the defendant?

4. In this case, the appellate court reversed the defendant’s conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. On what basis was that decision reached? Do you agree with the decision? Why or why not?

5. What does this case have to tell us about the difference between insanity and temporary insanity? Are differences between the two terms significant in cases like this one? Explain.