Idaho, the Insanity Defense, and the "Mens Rea" Defense
Prefaced by stating that [IANAL](
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IANAL)...this was just found in general research.
Idaho does not allow defendants to plead to an "insanity defense," per se.
>In 1982, the Idaho Legislature repealed Idaho's insanity defense statute and enacted a law that states that "mental condition shall not be a defense to any charge of criminal conduct," but the court may consider expert evidence on "any state of mind which is an element of the offense."
But Idaho does have convoluted case law where a [defendant might seek a plea on the grounds that they claim they lacked criminal ***"mens rea" or "guilty mind"*** to have known right from wrong.\*](
Insanity in the State of Idaho)
*(See the example of Idaho case law below that directly speaks to the "mens rea" defense.)*
>[\*Insanity defense not allowed in Idaho:](
Insanity in the State of Idaho) *In 1982, the Idaho Legislature repealed Idaho's insanity defense statute and enacted aregard law that states that "mental condition shall not be a defense to any charge of criminal conduct."*
>
>*Idaho law would distinguish the following two cases.*
>
>***Case One:*** *The defendant, due to insanity, believes that the victim is a wolf. He shoots and kills the victim.*
>
>***Case Two:*** *The defendant, due to insanity, believes that a wolf, a supernatural figure, has ordered him to kill the victim.*
>
>**In** ***Case One***\*, the defendant does not know he has killed a human being, and his insanity negates a mental element necessary to commit the crime.
>
>***In Case Two***\*, the defendant has intentionally killed a victim whom he knows is a human being; he possesses the necessary mens rea.
>
>*In both cases the defendant is unable, due to insanity, to appreciate the true quality of his act, and therefore unable to perceive that it is wrong.*
>
>*But in Idaho, the defendant in Case One could defend the charge by arguing that he lacked the mens rea, whereas the defendant in Case Two would not be able to raise a defense based on his mental illness.*
>
>***\[Delling v. Idaho, No. 11-1515 (U.S. Nov. 26, 2012) (Breyer, J., dissenting)\]***
The example in Case One specifically addresses the Idaho law concerning a defendant who commits a murder while operating under the delusion that the murder victim is a not a human being.
In Case Two the defendant believes a *supernatural being ordered* them to murder the victim.
**In Case One**, the Idaho defendant could offer a plea under "mens rea," e.g., they didn't have "guilty knowledge" as they didn't believe their victim was a human being. If the defendant believes the victim was not a human being, i.e. their victim was a "zombie," and there being no law defining actions against a supernatural being, the defendant has no "mens rea," i.e., no "guilty knowledge" of having killed a person.
**In Case Two**, if a defendant believes a supernatural being *ordered* the murder, and they know their victim was a human being, it establishes that the defendant knows that murder of a human being is wrong, and they cannot plead they didn't have "guilty knowledge" when killing their victim.
It seems from this, that according to the Idaho "mens rea" case law, it may be possible that if Lori Vallow Daybell is charged with murder, she could plead that she didn't believe she was involved with the murder of a human being but had conspired to take action against a supernatural being (i.e., a zombie) and therefore has no "guilty knowledge" of having killed a person.
It's also possible that Chad Daybell and Lori might at some time offer a "blame Alex" defense in regards to any 1st-degree murder charges.
If this doesn't look promising they might both go to a "[cut-throat defense](
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095655333)\*" where as co-defendants they point the finger at each other for all other attendant conspiracy and accessory charges.
When more evidence is brought forth from the galaxy of possible co-defendants and witnesses in this case, it may become increasingly difficult for either Chad or Lori to deny they had prior or post knowledge of one or many of the murders that occured in their orbit.
Considering all the state lines crisscrossed by these cult members while committing criminal acts, and with the involvement of the FBI, even if Chad and Lori have luck with state charges, they still might face federal charges.
If there are any lawyers with knowledge of Idaho case law that could chime in with clarification, it would be most welcome.
-------------------------------------------------------
>***\*\*Cut-throat Defense***\*: A defense in criminal proceedings where a defendant gives evidence on his own behalf, thereby strengthening the prosecution case against his co‐defendant.\*
Quoted from: Reddit r/Lori Vallow u/Dunbegan
Idaho, the Insanity Defense, and the "Mens Rea" Defense : LoriVallow
