Mitigation & Specific-Intent Evaluations
Clarifying mental and developmental factors affecting specific intent and sentencing.
Attorneys may seek mitigation and specific‑intent evaluations when a defendant’s mental disorder, cognitive impairment, neurodevelopmental disability, trauma, or substance use may have prevented them from forming the requisite specific intent for a charged offense or could constitute a mitigating factor at sentencing.
Although California abolished the diminished‑capacity defense, Penal Code §28(a) permits mental‑condition evidence to show that the defendant did not form the specific intent required. Mitigation evaluations are also requested to present developmental immaturity, incomplete brain development, and trauma to reduce culpability and inform sentencing.
What you receive
Assessment of psychiatric conditions, neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g., intellectual disability, autism, ADHD), cognitive impairment, and substance‑induced states
Evaluation of developmental history, trauma, family and social environment, and neuropsychological functioning to explain behavior and decision‑making
Analysis of the defendant’s capacity to form specific intent at the time of the offense and identification of mitigating factors (e.g., immaturity, trauma, mental illness, diminished impulse control)
Integration of scientific research on brain development, trauma, and mental illness to contextualize behavior
Recommendations for sentencing, diversion, or treatment alternatives based on clinical findings, if desired
Our Process
-
We review police reports, charging documents, discovery, prior mental‑health evaluations, educational and medical records, and sentencing reports.
-
We interview the defendant regarding their mental health history, substance use, trauma, developmental experiences, and recollection of the offense.
-
We administer standardized tests to assess cognitive functioning, neurodevelopmental disorders, personality structure, malingering, and mental state.
-
We consult with family members, treatment providers, and others who can provide insight into the defendant’s functioning and history.
-
A comprehensive report discusses specific‑intent formation and mitigating factors, referencing Penal Code §28(a) and relevant case law. Timelines vary by case complexity and court deadlines; please contact us for timeframe estimates. We are available to testify regarding our findings and recommendations.
FAQs
-
California abolished the diminished‑capacity defense, but Penal Code §28(a) allows evidence of mental disorders to be used specifically to challenge whether a defendant formed the required mental state for a crime, such as specific intent, premeditation, or malice aforethought. This means a mental condition cannot be used as a "defense" to negate the capacity to commit a crime, but it can be presented to show the defendant did not have the necessary mental state to be convicted of a specific intent crime.
-
Mental illness, neurodevelopmental disorders, cognitive impairment, trauma, substance‑induced states, and developmental immaturity may be mitigating factors.
-
Yes. Courts may consider mitigating factors in determining appropriate sentences. Expert testimony can help explain how mental conditions influenced behavior.
-
Yes. We consider incomplete brain development and developmental immaturity when evaluating younger defendants.
