The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In 1983, Utah adopted a new statutory scheme for insanity. Its new statute held that insanity was a defense such that it can show that the defendant lacked the mental state required as an element of the offense charged but that otherwise, insanity is not a defense. This eliminated the prior law, which allowed the defendant to present an independent affirmative defense of insanity. Hererra (D) and Sweezy (D1) pled not guilty by reason of insanity and filed interlocutory appeals challenging the constitutionality of the new statute.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.