Jury Instructions in a Case With a Defense of Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity
Kristina P. Lloyd, Ira K. Packer
Abstract
Kristina P. Lloyd, Ira K. Packer
Abstract
In State v. Okie , 987 A.2d 495 (Me. 2010), John Okie appealed his conviction for murder, arguing that the court improperly instructed the jury regarding the defense of not criminally responsible by reason of insanity, because the jury was not informed as to the consequences of such a verdict. He
OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
In State v. Okie , 987 A.2d 495 (Me. 2010), John Okie appealed his conviction for murder, arguing that the court improperly instructed the jury regarding the defense of not criminally responsible by reason of insanity, because the jury was not informed as to the consequences of such a verdict. He
Key concepts: Jury, Verdict, Insanity defense, Conviction, Insanity, Psychology, Law, Diminished responsibility