NGRI

Question 1

Actus reus 2 reqs

Answer 1

Voluntary and conscious

Question 2

Automatism (def, insanity def, and actus reus)

Answer 2

Lotsa things like somnambulism, hypnotic states, fugues, metabolic d/o, epilepsy
- Split on independent vs NGRI variant, most states have as separate thing
- Technically no actus reus bc not conscious/voluntary

Question 3

Diminished Capacity (what it is, allowance in states, LMC)

Answer 3

Mental ds or intoxication precluded capacity to form requisite intent
Allowed in most states, 14 bar
Montana v. Egelhoff

Question 4

Rex v. Arnold Trial (1724)

Answer 4

Wild beast test “A man must be totally deprived of his understanding or memory, so as not to know what he is doing, no more than an infant, a brute, or a wild beast”
- Established total insanity or wild beast test which was standard for 75 years

Question 5

Hadfield Trial (1800)

Answer 5

Hadfield shot at King, charged treason, his atty argued that wild beast madness never existed, and created more reasonable test flowing from delusion rather than total insanity, and Hadfield found NGRI

Question 6

Criminal Lunatics Act 1800

Answer 6

Bill after Hadfield to put NGRI acquittees under gov’t control

Question 7

Edward Oxford Trial (1840)

Answer 7

Clear deliberate assassination attempts of Queen Victoria, but disease controlling him, so first irresistible impulse test. Given verdict of insanity under Criminal Lunatics Act 1800

Question 8

Right-Wrong Pre vs Post M’Naughten

Answer 8

Previously, tested by whether def could give sensible answers to questions about rightfulness/wrongfulness of different actions.
M’Naughten shifted question to whether knew specific act was wrong, which has been used in all subsequent tests

Question 9

Moral vs. Legal Wrongfulness

Answer 9

8th C COA has interpreted 1984 Fed NGRI test to include moral wrongfulness (US v. Dubray 1988)
Most states don’t specificy meaning

Question 10

Subjective vs Objective Moral Standard

Answer 10

Subjective means lack CR if they personally believed (as result of psych d/o, so no bombing abortion clinics) morally justified in behavior, even if illegal/contrary to public standards of morality
Objective means lack CR if lacked capacity to know society considers their acts to be wrong

Question 11

Moral Insanity

Answer 11

Basically some sort of madness of feelings/emotions that overrode rational mind, w/o insane delusions.
- Basically, crime constituted dx, battle about redefining criminal acts/evil under this umbrella, dead in US following Garfield’s assassination trial

Question 12

3 Components of Insanity

Answer 12

MI
Wrongfulness
Ability to refrain

Question 13

Durham Mental Disease vs Defect

Answer 13

Disease capable of either improving or deteriorating, defect as not capable of either deterioriating/improving, may be cause of injury, congenital, residual effect, etc

Question 14

Isaac Ray Opinion on Insanity

Answer 14

Basically thought insanity too narrow in scope, bc insane mind retains many faculties, so really more whether act contained within insanity’s sphere of influence (more product testy, irresistible influence)

Question 15

New Hampshire Doctrine

Answer 15

From 1869, basically a product test: “accused suffering from a mental disease or defect and whether the criminal act was the result of the disease or defect.”

Question 16

3 Problems w/ Durham/Product Test

Answer 16

Greatly increased NGRI acquittals, problems handling psychopaths, gave too much power to experts

Question 17

2 Cases that Affected Durham/Product Test

Answer 17

Washington v US (1967) - limited psych testimony on product/ultimate issue
US v Brawner (1972) - abandonded Durham rule for first portion of ALI rule

Question 18

Moral Penal Code 1955 (aka ALI Test)

Answer 18

1. Not responsible for his crim conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental ds/defect he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate criminality of conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
2. Terms “mental ds/defect” do not include abn manifested only by repeated crim or otherwise antisocial conduct

Question 19

Federal Rule (1984)

Answer 19

Affirmative defense to a prosecution under any Fed state that, at the time of the commission of the acts constitute the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental ds/defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts

Question 20

IDRA Effect on NGRI Success Rates

Answer 20

Wording change w/ no effect, but BOP on def instead of prosecution substantially reduced successful NGRIs

Question 21

Federal Ultimate Issue

Answer 21

Psychs can’t testify on it (might potentially be able to testify about capacity to form mens rea)

Question 22

4 No Insanity Defense States + Consideration

Answer 22

MT, ID, UT, KS (but MI can still be introduced to negative/disprove requisite mens rea)

Question 23

Minimum Req’d Insanity Defense by SCOTUS (& Case)

Answer 23

Has never addressed if minimum insanity test or if required at all, but has said that abolishing affirmative defense fine if can argue lack of mens rea (Kahler v. Kansas (2020)

Question 24

Kahler v. Kansas (SCOTUS 2020) FOTC & Issue

Answer 24

• Kahler’s wife took kids/divorced, so he drove to gma’s house and murdered them
• Psychs dx MDD and mixed PD
• KS eliminated affirmative NGRI 1996, but could pursue mens rea: as result mental ds/defect, lacked mental state req’d
• MH profs testified about impact of depression on mens rea, but couldn’t show Kahler didn’t intend to kill victims
• Also mitigation for capital sentencing, but sentenced to death
• Appealed SCOTUS arguing no affirmative NGRI violated D.P. 14th A
  ISSUE: Whether D.P. requires insanity defense that includes inability to distinguish right from wrong?

Question 25

Kahler v. Kansas (SCOTUS 2020) H (2)

Answer 25

D.P. doesn’t require moral incapacity insanity test
Mens rea (cognitive incapacity) and potential sentencing mitigation sufficent

Question 26

Kahler v. Kansas (SCOTUS 2020) R (Const Standard, KS 1996 Act)

Answer 26

• Cited prev SCOTUS decision ruling that didn’t want to establish const standard
• KS didn’t abolish insanity defense, just limited its scope in 1996

Question 27

Kahler v. Kansas (SCOTUS 2020) Dissent (Historical, Intent)

Answer 27

• Historical belief that shouldn’t be punished if not morally responsible
• MI doesn’t typically deprive people of ability to form intent, just affects motivation for intent
• Cited long history of ability to distinguish right from wrong as essential element for criminal culpability, so fundamental principle of justice (& before 1970, every state had)

Question 28

NGRI %ages

Answer 28

1% of felony trials, successful 25% of the time (& those often agreed to by prosecutors, not juries)

Question 29

Difficulty Modifying Insanity Defense

Answer 29

Bc generally reflects moral opinions of jurors more than expert arguing over specific statute criteria (death qualified juries far less likely to accept for example)

Question 30

6 Possible Associations of Crime w/ Mental Illness

Answer 30

1. Crime response to psychotic sx (some will be NGRI
2. Crime motivated by compulsive desires (paraphilia, impulse control d/os) (usually not NGRI)
3. Crime result of PD
4. Coincidental MI unrelated to crime
5. MI results from crime (PTSD, depression)
6. Malingered MI to avoid responsibility

Question 31

Settled vs Temporary Insanity Caused by Voluntary Intoxication

Answer 31

Temporary are just acute intoxication, universally excluded
“Settled” might be due to voluntary use, but effects don’t subside when drug intoxication ends (psychosis or cognitive deficits from ETOH or other drugs)

Question 32

3 Areas That Should Be Addressed in Insanity Opinions

Answer 32

1. Determination of presence of mental ds/defect at the time of the crime.
2. Relationship between the mental ds/defect and criminal behavior.
3. Whether def’s mental state at time of crime satisfies jurisdictional criteria for insanity defense

Question 33

3 General Requirements of GBMI

Answer 33

1. Committed the act
2. Was aware of the nature, quality, and wrongfulness of the act
3. Had a mental d/o which substantially impaired ability to conform his conduct to reqs of law