Insanity Flashcards
Competency to Stand Trial
D must have a sufficient present ability to consult with their attorney “with a reasonable degree of rational understanding” and must have a “rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings” against them.
What verdicts are there for insanity defense?
Special plea: Not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI)
OR
Guilty but mentally ill verdict (GBMI)
M’Naghten Test
A person is insane if, at the time of the act, they were laboring under such a defect of reason arising from a disease of the mind that: (1) the defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act they were doing; or (2) if they did know it, they did not know that what they were doing was wrong (not knowing the difference between right or wrong).
- majority position
- some jurisdictions only codify 1 prong
Irresistible Impulse Rule
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 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.
The Product Test
A person should be excused of criminal liability if their act was the product of mental disease or mental defect.
-Only works in New Hampshire
MPC Insanity Approach
MPC 4.01
(1) 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 to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform is conduct to the requirements of law.
(2) Doesn’t include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.
Federal Insanity Test
A person is excused if they prove by clear and convincing evidence that, at the time of the offense, as the result of a severe mental disease or defect, they were unable to appreciate: (1) the nature and quality of their conduct, OR (2) the wrongfulness of the conduct.
State v. Wilson
MPC. D thought victim was trying to systematically ruin his life and believed he was saving the world by killing him. Under MPC test, a defendant does not truly appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct if a mental disease or defect causes him both to harbor a distorted perception of reality and to believe that under the circumstances as he believes them to be, his actions do not offend societal morality, even though he may also be aware that society, on the basis of the criminal code, does not condone his action
Yates v. State
Texas woman drowned all of her kids one by one in the bathtub.
M’Naughten elements
1) D didn’t know nature and quality of act
2) D didn’t know what they were doing is wrong
