Insanity Flashcards
Insanity
Insanity is an affirmative and complete defense to a crime. A defendant will not be held liable if she was insane at the time of the act.
Every defendant is presumed to be sane, and thus a defendant bears the burden of pleading and proving insanity.
NGRI plea has to be asserted before trial as an affirmative defense.
Competency to Stand Trial
A defendant will be found incompetent if he is unable to (1) appreciate and understand the nature of the charges and proceedings and (2) assist defense counsel in defending the case (really low bar for competency…)
Word for Word
M’Naghten Test
A defendant will not be found guilty by reason of insanity if, as a result of a mental disease or defect, (1) the defendant did not know the nature or quality of the criminal act, or (2) he did not know that what he was doing was wrong at the time of committing the act.
M’Naghten Knowledge
Whether the defendant could know or appreciate the nature or quality of the act.
Complex understanding of the context, significance, or moral and practical consequences of the act.
M’Naghten “wrong”
Can either mean legally or morally wrong, with no clearly preferred interpretation.
In many instances, term is not defined and left to the jury
Some cases present the issue as whether the defendant had the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong at the time of the act.
M’Naughten mental disease or defect
Does not specific which mental conditions qualify. Most courts interpret the rule to include organic mental illnesses and cognitive disabilities. No allowance for irresistible impulses
don’t need to know word for word
Irresistable-Impulse Test
A person is legally insane if, at the time of the offense: (1) they acted from an irresistible and uncontrollable impulse; (2) they lost the power to choose between the right and wrong and to avoid doing the act in question so that free agency was destroyed; or (3) the defendant’s will has been otherwise than voluntarily so completely destroyed that their actions are not subject to it, but beyond their control.
Often invoked in combination with the N’Naghten rule
Durham Products Rule
A defendant is not guilty if the crime was the result, or product, of a mental disease or defect.
Only in NH.
MPC Insanity Test
A defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if, as a result of a mental disease or defect, the defendant lacks substantial capacity to (1) appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or (2) conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. See MPC § 4.01(1)
MPC Insanity versus M’Naghten
Uses the term “substantial capacity” to broaden the defense by requiring a less-comprehensive incapacity than the previous tests.
Uses the term “appreciate” instead of “know” to emphasize that sanity requires some level of understanding beyond mere factual awareness of the act and its consequences.
In providing the option for states to adopt either criminality or wrongfulness, it allows states to choose whether the defendant must appreciate that the act is legally wrong or morally wrong.
Yates v. Texas
Texas only applies the second prong of M’Naghten. (2) he did not know that what he was doing was wrong at the time of committing the act.
Yates case where she drowned her kids because she thought the devil was taking them.
She did know it was legally wrong, but what about morally?
Analysis
M’Naghten Analysis
1) Was she mentally ill at the time of the act?
2) Did she know she was committing a criminal act?
3) Did she know she was committing an immoral act?
4) Did she know the nature and quality of the the act?
(Look at formal and affective)
5) Did the mental illness cause her not to know the wrongness?
(causation)1
MPC Analysis
1) Was she mentally ill at the time of the act?
2) As a result of that disease or defect, did she lack the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of her conduct?
(Apply Wilson morality test for wrongness)
3) As a result of that disease or defect, did Yates lack the substantial capacity to conform her conduct to the requirement of the law?
Deific Decree Doctrine
People who are mentally ill and believe god has commanded them to do the crime
Wilson Morality Rule
A defendant may establish that he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the “wrongfulness” of his conduct if he can prove that, at the time of his criminal act, as a result of mental disease or defect, he substantially misperceived reality and harbored a delusional belief that society, under the circumstances as the defendant honestly but mistakenly understood them, would not have morally condemned his actions even if he understands that his actions are criminally wrong.
