Does Michigan have a diminished capacity defense?
Diminished capacity means the inability to fully comprehend, process, or understand feelings, emotions, circumstances, and judgments. In some states, a person who has diminished capacity might be “less guilty” than someone who has their full capacity.
No Diminished Capacity Defense in Michigan
In the case of Metrish v Lancaster, decided in May 2013, the United States Supreme Court decided that the Michigan Supreme Court was correct when it did not allow Mr. Lancaster to use a diminished capacity defense in his second trial because the Michigan Supreme Court determined that the defense was no longer valid between his first and second trial.
Recent Case on Point
Diminished capacity is short of a claim of actual insanity. It states that a person could not have formed the intent to commit the crime because of some mental defect at the time of the crime. The defense was available to Mr. Lancaster at his first trial. It was not successful, and the jury convicted him of first-degree murder. The appellate court sent the case back for another trial on unrelated grounds.
Since Lancaster’s first trial, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the diminished capacity was no longer valid. The trial court held that the Michigan Supreme Court decision applied retroactively, and Lancaster could not use the defense in his second trial. The Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. Mr. Lancaster went to the federal system. The federal district court agreed with the trial court, holding that the abolition of the diminished capacity defense was a reasonable change because it was not well established under Michigan law. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the federal district court’s holding that the retroactive application denied Mr. Lancaster his due process rights.
The issues presented to the United States Supreme Court were whether the Michigan Supreme Court’s abolishment of the diminished capacity defense was an unexpected and indefensible change. Did the Michigan Court of Appeals make a mistake in retroactively applying the change to Lancaster’s case? The United States Supreme Court said no to both issues.
The Court held that the Michigan Supreme Court ruling eliminating the diminished capacity defense was reasonable. It had limited applicability in Michigan law, and the legislature did not include it in Michigan’s statutory scheme. Also, that retroactive application did not violate due process because it represented a foreseeable interpretation of the statute by the Michigan Supreme Court.
“If there is no diminished capacity defense, what are the alternatives?”
Michigan does not allow diminished capacity as a standalone defense. But that doesn’t mean mental illness or impaired thinking is irrelevant in a criminal case. Several alternative strategies can still protect a defendant whose mental state played a role in the alleged offense.
The most direct option is the legal insanity defense under MCL 768.21a. Legal insanity is an affirmative defense. To prevail, the defense must prove that, at the time of the offense, the defendant had a mental illness or intellectual disability that made them unable to understand the wrongfulness of their conduct or to conform their behavior to the law. The burden is on the defense to prove legal insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.
Another possibility is a guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) verdict under MCL 768.36. Guilty but mentally ill applies when the jury believes the defendant committed the offense and was not legally insane but still suffered from a significant mental illness at the time. A GBMI conviction requires the Michigan Department of Corrections to provide psychiatric treatment while the defendant serves their sentence.
Finally, while diminished capacity is not a recognized defense in Michigan, the defense may still use mental health evidence to challenge whether the prosecution has proven the required intent (mens rea). For example, in a specific intent crime, the defense may argue that the defendant’s mental illness made it impossible to form the necessary intent—even if that argument no longer qualifies as diminished capacity under state law. Judges vary in how they apply this principle, and careful evidentiary strategy is essential.
These options are not interchangeable. Each has unique requirements, risks, and strategic implications. Choosing the right one depends on the facts of the case, the defendant’s diagnosis, the charges, and the judge’s track record on these issues.
The Importance of Retained Defense Counsel for Defendants With Mental Illness
Defendants who have mental illnesses are uniquely vulnerable within Michigan’s criminal justice system. In jail or prison, they are often targeted, abused, or isolated. Their symptoms can be mistaken for defiance or manipulation, which leads to disciplinary write-ups or placement in solitary confinement instead of proper treatment. Judges and prosecutors rarely have the training or insight to recognize how untreated mental illness shapes behavior. They often fail to understand how adequate intervention can lead to stability, safety, and rehabilitation.
The system focuses almost exclusively on punishment. Sentences often ignore a defendant’s mental health history, dismiss the impact of trauma, and overlook any evidence of treatability. Judges may mean well, but most lack the education and background necessary to understand mental illness and its treatment. As a result, they frequently default to incarceration, simply because no one gives them a better path to consider.
A retained, respected criminal defense lawyer can change that.
Reframing Mental Illness Defenses to Turn the Tables on the Prosecution
An experienced attorney who understands mental illness defenses and diminished capacity can reframe the case in ways that judges and prosecutors cannot ignore. A skilled advocate knows how to introduce expert evaluations, diagnostic records, and other evidence that humanize the client and prove they are not beyond help. Just as important, the right lawyer knows how to negotiate with the prosecutor and push for a resolution that prioritizes treatment and rehabilitation over prison time.
Without that kind of defense, individuals with mental illness often face sentences that destroy their lives and waste any chance at recovery.
Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney experienced in constitutional issues and appeals.
If you, or a loved one, is charged with a crime, possibly going to be charged with a crime, or needs to investigate whether an appeal of a conviction is possible, it is essential that you speak to an expert in those areas. The attorneys at LEWIS & DICKSTEIN, P.L.L.C. have decades of experience in criminal law from the pre-charge phase through any appeals. Do not trust your future and freedom to an attorney who dabbles in criminal law. You need a specialist to ensure that you get the protection and due process you deserve.
Call us today at (248) 263-6800 for a free consultation or complete an online Request for Assistance Form. We will contact you promptly and find a way to help you.
We will find a way to help you.
We Are Not Afraid to Win!
