Kahler v. Kansas
140 S. Ct. 1021, 206 L. Ed. 2d 312 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a state to adopt an insanity defense that acquits a defendant who was unable to distinguish right from wrong when committing a crime. States have broad latitude to define the elements of criminal offenses and the scope of affirmative defenses, including legal insanity.
Facts:
- In 2009, after his wife Karen Kahler filed for divorce and moved out with their children, James Kahler became increasingly distraught.
- On Thanksgiving weekend, James Kahler drove to the home of Karen's grandmother, where his estranged family was staying.
- Kahler entered the home and shot his wife, Karen, twice, while allowing their son to flee.
- He then proceeded through the residence, shooting and killing Karen's grandmother and his two teenage daughters.
- All four victims died from their injuries.
- The following day, Kahler surrendered to the police.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Kansas charged James Kahler with capital murder in a Kansas state trial court.
- Prior to trial, Kahler filed a motion arguing that Kansas's insanity defense statute, which rejects the moral-incapacity test, violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
- The trial court denied Kahler's motion.
- Following a trial, a jury found Kahler guilty of capital murder and, in a separate penalty phase, recommended a sentence of death.
- Kahler, as the appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Kansas Supreme Court, the state's highest court, arguing that the insanity statute was unconstitutional.
- The Kansas Supreme Court, relying on its precedent, rejected the constitutional challenge and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider Kahler's petition.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment compel a state to adopt an insanity defense that acquits a defendant who, due to mental illness, lacked the capacity to distinguish moral right from wrong?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kagan
No. The Due Process Clause does not compel Kansas to adopt an insanity defense based on a defendant's moral incapacity. A state rule on criminal liability violates due process only if it offends a principle of justice so rooted in history as to be fundamental, and no single version of the insanity defense meets this high standard. The history of the insanity defense is one of varied and evolving standards, with some common law traditions focusing on cognitive capacity (mens rea) and others on moral capacity, without a settled consensus. Kansas has not abolished the insanity defense entirely; it allows evidence of mental illness to negate the required criminal intent (mens rea), and it permits full consideration of a defendant's mental state, including moral incapacity, at the sentencing phase. This approach represents a permissible policy choice for the state to make in the complex and uncertain area where law and psychiatry intersect.
Dissenting - Justice Breyer
Yes. Kansas's law violates the Due Process Clause by eliminating the core of a centuries-old, fundamental principle of justice: that a defendant who lacks the mental capacity to be held morally responsible for his actions cannot be found criminally guilty. For 700 years, Anglo-American law has recognized that moral incapacity due to mental illness is a complete defense to a crime. By limiting the inquiry to only mens rea (cognitive capacity), Kansas permits the conviction of defendants who are clearly insane, such as a person who knows he is killing but believes he was commanded by God to do so. Merely allowing this evidence at sentencing is insufficient because it does not prevent the unjust conviction and stigmatization of a morally blameless individual.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the Court's significant deference to states in defining the substance of their criminal laws and defenses. By holding that the moral-incapacity (right-from-wrong) test is not a constitutional minimum, the Court allows states to experiment with a mens rea-only approach to insanity. This may encourage other states to narrow their insanity defenses, shifting the consideration of a defendant's moral culpability from the guilt phase to the sentencing phase. The ruling solidifies the principle that there is no single, constitutionally mandated formulation for how the legal system must account for mental illness in assessing criminal responsibility.
