Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the insanity defense used by Arizona.
Clark v. Arizona Seal of the United States Supreme Court Supreme Court of the United States Argued April 19, 2006 Decided June 29, 2006 Full case name Eric Michael Clark v. State of Arizona Docket no. 05-5966 Citations 548 U.S. 735 (more) 126 S. Ct. 2709; 165 L. Ed. 2d 842 Case history Prior Defendant convicted, Coconino County Superior Court, Sept. 3, 2003; affirmed, Ariz. Ct. App., Jan. 25, 2005; review denied, Ariz., May 25, 2005; cert. granted, 126 S. Ct. 797 (2005). Holding Due process does not prohibit Arizona's use of an insanity test stated solely in terms of the capacity to tell whether an act charged as a crime was right or wrong. The state could also constitutionally limit a defendant's evidence of mental defect to only what is relevant to that insanity test, even when mens rea is an element of the charged crime. Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed. Court membership Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy · David Souter Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito Case opinions Majority Souter, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito; Breyer except parts III-B, III-C, and ultimate disposition Concur/dissent Breyer Dissent Kennedy, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg Laws applied U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-502(A) The Court affirmed the murder conviction of a man with paranoid schizophrenia for killing a police officer.
The man had argued that his inability to understand the nature of his acts at the time that they were committed should be a sufficient basis for showing that he lacked the requisite mental state required as an element of the charged crime.
The Court upheld Arizona's restriction of admissible mental health evidence only to the issue of insanity and not to show that the defendant did not possess the required mental intent level necessary to satisfy an element of the crime. Evidence is admissible only to show that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime's commission.
In this case, the defendant knew right from wrong and so he could not qualify under Arizona's insanity defense.
Plates at our planet's surface move because of the intense heat in the Earth's core that causes molten rock in the mantle layer to move. It moves in a pattern called a convection cell that forms when warm material rises, cools, and eventually sink down. As the cooled material sinks down, it is warmed and rises again
The way that D is characterized by Alger in the given excerpt from the passage is that; He is Indifferent
<h3>What is the Inference from the passage?</h3>
The complete question is as seen in the brainly link attached.
From the given passage, we see that D doesn't really dislike dirt because he doesn't think that it's important to wash off dirt.
From D's behavior above, we can say that he is indifferent to the customs of his culture because most people in that culture will wash themselves to get rid of the dirt but he doesn't think it is important like the culture thinks.
