People v. Mette

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the trial court correctly instructed the jury that the “defendant had to establish by evidence that outweighed the evidence against him that he lacked the capacity to form specific intent”
• noting that the defense of insanity is an affirmative defense that “does not negate selected elements or facts of the crime.” (quotation marks and citations omitted; emphasis added)
• observing that “[t]his court has consistently held that the defense of diminished capacity comes within the codified definition of legal insanity and is subject to the same procedural requirements” (collecting cases)
• “The prosecution is not shouldered with the burden of proving the failure of an affirmative defense.”
• “As a general rule, juries are presumed to follow their instructions”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).