•   •   •   •

Download the Paper (105 K, PDF file) - February 2, 2005 Tell a colleague about it. Printing Tips: Select 'print as image' in the Acrobat print dialog if you have trouble printing.

ABSTRACT:
Would a statute that defined sufficient provocation for "sudden quarrel" or "heat of passion" to exclude gay and trans panic defenses violate defendants' due process rights? No. In determining whether such a statute violated a defendants' due process rights, a court would follow the U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning in Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37 (1996), which upheld a Montana statute prohibiting consideration of a defendant's voluntary intoxication in determining the mens rea element of any criminal offense.

SUGGESTED CITATION:
Brad Sears and Elizabeth Kukura, "Constitutional Analysis of AB 1160: Validity of Due Process Challenges to Legislation Elimination Gay and Trans Panic Defenses in California" (February 2, 2005). The Williams Institute. Paper sears_4.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/uclalaw/williams/sears_4