In Clark v. Arizona, (1) the United States Supreme Court restricted a defendant's use of mental illness evidence to the insanity defense, (2) rejecting Clark's argument that mental illness evidence should be allowed for the purpose of negating mens rea, without raising an insanity defense. (3) The issues raised within the Clark case bring to mind many interesting questions about the insanity defense and the evidence used to support a claim of insanity. Can a defendant be undoubtedly mentally ill as in the Clark case, yet still have the capacity to form intent or the mens rea to commit a crime under the law? Should evidence of mental illness be used by a trier of fact to negate or rebut mens rea? Moreover, what is the role of the expert, the psychiatrist or psychologist, in determining whether a defendant has the capacity to form intent or is insane? This Note looks at the law as it currently rests in Alabama and provides an overview of how these questions are answered within this State. It begins with an overview of the affirmative defense of insanity within Alabama. Next, it will discuss whether, under Alabama law, a defendant can be insane and yet still possess the mens rea to commit a crime. The Note further discusses whether evidence of mental illness is considered by the State to rebut intent. Finally, this Note talks about the role psychiatrists play in determining mental illness and the ability to know right from wrong, primarily in their own words. I. CLARK V. ARIZONA
