Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register

People v. Grant

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Brief Fact Summary.

Grant (Defendant) had epilepsy and would suffer from seizures. He was convicted of attempting to assault a police officer making an arrest and appealed, arguing that the jury was not instructed that his actions must be voluntary.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

An individual is not criminally liable for actions over which he has no conscious control.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

The issue of a defendant's sanity at the time of the offense is generally a question of fact for the jury and a jury's finding on the issue of insanity will not be disturbed unless it is so manifestly against the weight of the evidence as to indicate the verdict was based on passion or prejudice.

View Full Point of Law
Facts.

Defendant was diagnosed with epilepsy. The condition caused seizures and violent outbursts. Defendant was outside of a tavern while a police officer was arresting another individual. Defendant threw himself at the officer in an attempt to keep him from arresting the other individual. Defendant was arrested and then suffered a serious seizure requiring hospitalization. Defendant argued at trial that the entire incident was the result of his epilepsy. The court instructed the members on insanity, but did not instruct on automatic behavior. Defendant was convicted, and appealed.

Issue.

Is an individual criminally liable for actions over which he has no conscious control?

Held.

(Reardon, J.) No. An individual is not criminally liable for actions over which he has no conscious control. Automatic acts are not the same thing as insanity. While insanity keeps a person from understanding the criminal nature of his behavior, automatism prevents a person from controlling his behavior, even though he understands its criminal nature. An automatic act is involuntary and the jury should have been instructed to that effect. Reversed.

Discussion.

Insanity pertains to the mens rea requirement of an offense. Automatism pertains to the actus reus requirement of an offense. If the conscious mind loses control over the actions of the body, then the act is involuntary and the individual is not criminally responsible.


Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following