## Facts

- Tomas R. Herrera was charged with murder and attempted murder after fatally shooting his ex-girlfriend and firing at her mother and brother; he was arrested shortly thereafter while still armed and without evidence of intoxication.
- Mikell Sweezey was charged with attempted murder after approaching a man outside a hotel and shooting him in the face; a security officer heard him explain the shooting in terms of retaliation.
- Both defendants pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and filed pretrial motions facially challenging Utah’s insanity-defense statute, Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-305(1), which recognizes mental illness only to negate the offense’s required mental state and provides that “mental illness is not otherwise a defense.”
- The district courts rejected the constitutional challenges; the Utah Supreme Court granted interlocutory review and consolidated the appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the facial constitutional challenges to Utah’s insanity-defense statute were ripe and reviewable on interlocutory appeal before trial.
2. Whether limiting the insanity defense to proof that mental illness negated the required mens rea violates federal due process.
3. Whether the statutory scheme violates Utah constitutional due process or equal protection.
4. Whether the scheme impermissibly shifts to the defendant the burden of disproving mens rea or any element of the charged offenses.

## Decision

- The court held the defendants had standing to bring facial challenges and that the issues were ripe for interlocutory review.
- The court upheld § 76-2-305(1) and related provisions against federal and state due process and equal protection attacks.
- The court held the statutory scheme does not shift the burden of proof; the State remains required to prove every element, including mens rea, beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The trial courts’ rulings were affirmed, and the cases were remanded for trial.

## Legal Principles

- A legislature may define and limit the insanity defense; neither the federal constitution nor the Utah constitution mandates a particular insanity test (such as inability to appreciate wrongfulness).
- Due process is satisfied where the prosecution must prove all elements beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant may present relevant mental-illness evidence to contest whether the required mental state existed.
- A statutory scheme that confines mental-illness evidence to negating mens rea does not, by itself, violate equal protection when it is rationally related to legitimate governmental objectives.
- Requiring a defendant to introduce mental-illness evidence to challenge the State’s mens rea proof does not reallocate the burden of persuasion; the State must still convince the fact-finder beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted with the required mental state.

## Conclusion

Utah’s mens rea–only insanity statute is facially constitutional: defendants may use mental-illness evidence to negate the required mental state, but mental illness does not otherwise excuse criminal liability, and the prosecution retains the burden to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt.


State v. Herrera, 895 P.2d 359 (Utah 1995)