Defenses - Insanity (& Diminished Capacity)

Question 1

Diminished Capacity

Answer 1

Can be used to challenge a specific intent crime but not a general intent crime. CA follows.

MPC - Evidence that D suffered mental disease or defect admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the D did or did not have a state of mind which is an element of the offense

Question 2

Insanity Rule

Answer 2

Leads to a verdict of Not Guilty for Reason of Insanity (NGRI). Use the M’Naghten test or ALI/MPC test.

Question 3

M’Naghten Test

Answer 3

To be deemed insane, the D must, as a result of mental disease:
(1) Did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing
OR
(2) If he did know it, didn’t know it was wrong (cognitive prong)

• Drug use that leads to these types of mental states are NOT ALLOWED
• Typical disease: Psychosis, Delusional and Hallucinogenic, Catatonic

Question 4

Cognitive Prong

Answer 4

Crenshaw Case: D did not know that it was legally wrong = if you know it was legally wrong then D cannot use the insanity defense (if yes, not insane). Here, D knew it was legally wrong because he took multiple steps to cover up his acts.

Question 5

ALI/MPC Test

Answer 5

A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either:
(1) To appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct (cognitive prong, dont know right from wrong)
OR
(2) To conform his conduct to the requirements of law (volitional prong)

Drew case: D knew it was wrong but could not control himself