Insanity and Criminal Responsibility

Question 1

In re M’Naghten (1843)

Answer 1

British case that set forth the legal test of insanity
“Lunatics and idiots” could not be held responsible for illegal conduct

Prong 1: cognitive prong: individual did not know what he or she was doing
Prong 2: wrongfulness prong (moral knowledge):

Question 2

Durham v. United States (1954)

Answer 2

Durham rule: requires the jury to determine whether a criminal act was causally connected to a mental disease or defect

Question 3

Ake v. Oklahoma (1985)

Answer 3

indigent clients have a right to psychiatric expertise to prepare an insanity defense in capital murder cases

Question 4

Whalem v. United States (1965)

Answer 4

the duty of a court to impose an insanity defense in a situation in which it would be likely to succeed

Question 5

Frendak v. United States (1979)

Answer 5

SCOTUS cited Faretta (defendant should play a central role in the creation of his or her defense) when it established that a defendant’s decision to waive an insanity defense is to be accepted as long as the defendant is competent to make that decision

Question 6

Clark v. Arizona (2006)

Answer 6

states are allowed to deny criminal defendants from presenting expert testimony from mental health experts in circumstances that might be confusing or misleading to a jury (e.g., diminished capacity in a jurisdiction that does allow)

Question 7

Jones v. United States (1983)

Answer 7

a ruling of NGRI could be used as a per se commitment - it establishes mental illness and violence to establish dangerous

Question 8

Foucha v. Louisiana (1992)

Answer 8

NGRI committee could not remain committed in the absence of mental illness

Question 9

United States ex rel Edney v. Smith (1976)

Answer 9

The state has a right to a discarded expert once an issue of mental state is raised

Once an assertion is made, the burden of proof switches to the defense, at least with regard to the parts of the procedure that address the defendant’s mental state.

Question 10

Kansas v. Cheever (2013)

Answer 10

allows the prosecution to introduce psychiatric evidence to rebut psychiatric evidence presented by the defense

Question 11

US v. Brawner (1972)

Answer 11

Circuit court embraced ALI (cognition + volition), and adopted by several states and federal jurisdictions

Question 12

Ibn-Tamas v. US (1979)

Answer 12

expert testimony allowed on battered women syndrome

Question 13

McDonald v. US (1962)

Answer 13

defined mental disease or defect as referred to in an insanity defense—”includes any abnormal condition of the mind which substantially affects mental or emotional processes and substantially impairs behavior controls.”

Question 14

Montana v. Egelhoff (1996)

Answer 14

A criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to present evidence of voluntary intoxication to negate the required mental state of a murder charge (states can restrict elements of a defense in prosecution)

Question 15

People v. Patterson (1976)

Answer 15

shifted the burden of proof of a mitigating circumstance affirmative defense to the defendant (extreme emotional disturbance)

Question 16

People v. Saille (1991)

Answer 16

In California, evidence of voluntary intoxication may be used as a defense to reduce murder to involuntary manslaughter if the defendant sufficiently shows that the intoxication prevented him from forming the specific intent to commit murder

Question 17

Powell v. TX (1989)

Answer 17

allowed the conviction of a chronic alcoholic for public intoxication

Question 18

Rex v. Arnold (1724)

Answer 18

to avail himself of the defense of insanity “a man must be totally deprived of his understanding and memory, so as not to know what he is doing, no more than an infant, a brute, or a wild beast.”

Question 19

Washington v. US (1967)

Answer 19

issued standardized explanatory instructions for use in trials involving insanity defense