Hendershott v. People (Supreme Ct of CO, 1982)
Procedural Historv: County ct ruled evidence inadmissible in prosecutions not requiring specific intent.
Facts: Hendershott struck, kicked, and choked roommate/gf. Arrested and charged with 3rd degree assault. Defense counsel intended to present expert opinion evidence that he lacked requisite culpability of "knowingly" or "recklessly" essential to 3rd degree assault.
Issue: Is a ct allowed to exclude evidence of mental impairment offered by the criminal defense?
Rule: An accused is presumed innocent of the charge and due process requires that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged before the accused may be convicted and subjected to punishment.
Holding: No, doing so violates due process. Reliable and relevant evidence of mental impairment is admissible.
Reasoning: 1. Would violate due process to require the prosecution to establish culpable mental state beyond a reasonable doubt while prohibiting the D from presenting evidence contesting this issue 2. Would render prosecution's evidence uncontestable-> goes against presumption of innocence and prosecution's proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt which is required by the Constitution-> downgrades prosecution's burden of proof