AAPL Landmark - Insanity Flashcards
Can a defendant be found NGRI in a criminal case if, as a result of mental illness, he cognitively did not know what he was doing or that it was wrong?
Yes.
M’Naughten (1843). The judges in the House of Lords opined that to be adjudicated NGRI, the defendant had to be mentally ill to the extent that he did not know what he was doing or, if he knew what he was doing, that he did not know that it was wrong. This cognitive, knowledge of right and wrong criterion has come to be known as the M’Naghten standard.
Is the M’Naughten “right/wrong” standard for legal insanity, even when modified to include irresistible impulse, too narrow? Should a more “modern” criterion reflect whether or not the defendant’s criminal act was the product of a mental disease or defect?
Yes.
Durham v. U.S (1954).
“an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.”
Should an expert witness be allowed to testify to the ultimate question in an insanity defense case?
No.
Washington v. U.S. (1967). Bazelon, ruled that the jury, not psychiatric experts, should decide to what extent the alleged offense was a product of mental illness.
Can a defendant with mental illness whose sanity at the time of the crime is in question competently refuse to raise an insanity defense?
Yes.
Frendak v. U.S. (1979). The court ruled that if a defendant has acted intelligently and voluntarily, a trial court must defer to his or her decision to waive the insanity defense. However, the trial court should have the ability to raise the defense if a defendant is not capable of making or has not made an intelligent and voluntary decision.
Must a defendant found NGRI remain mentally ill and dangerous at the time of commitment and afforded the same due process delineated in Addington v. Texas? Must the duration of confinement relate to the nature of the commitment offense?
No
Jones v. U.S. (1983).
The USSC ruled that the government can confine people found NGRI until they are no longer a danger to themselves or society. The standard was a preponderance of the evidence v. clear and convincing as defined in Addington.
The court ruled that people found NGRI should be treated differently from other people who are committed to mental institutions.
The court ruled that the length of a person’s commitment should not be limited by the maximum sentence they could have received for the crime.
Insanity acquittees constitute a special class and can be treated differently from civil patients.
Is an individual with compulsive gambling necessarily legally insane with regard to all behaviors that may be associated with his gambling behavior?
No.
U.S. v. Torniero (1984). there was not substantial acceptance of this in the field of psychiatry or that there is a nexus between gambling and stealing.
Must an insanity acquittee be both mentally ill and dangerous for a state to justify continued hospitalization?
Yes.
Foucha v. Louisiana (1992). The USSC reversed the lower courts and said it violated due process and the Equal Protection Clause.
The Court ruled that potential dangerousness was not a justification to retain a person found NGRI if no mental illness was present. An acquittee cannot be confined as a mental patient without some medical justification for doing so.
Can a state restrict evidence of mental illness at the time of a crime from being used as a men’s rea defense (as opposed to legal insanity)?
Yes.
Clark v. Arizona (2006). The USSC opined that given the potential for jury confusion when assessing expert testimony about mental illness, Arizona made a reasonable decision to confine the consideration of evidence of mental disease and incapacity to the insanity defense so that it can preserve a legal presumption of sanity and the requirement that a defendant prove his insanity.
May states with insanity defense statutes constitutionally restrict the cognitive prong of legal insanity to an appreciation of wrongfulness?
Yes.
Clark v. Arizona (2006). The USSC held that there is no constitutional right to any particular definition of insanity.
