US CR Flashcards
“Wild Beast Test”
1723: man must be “totally deprived of his understanding and memory, and doth not know what he is doing, no more than an infant, a brute, or a wild beast.”
Hadfield (1800)
“offspring of delusion” test
Edward Oxford (1840)
proposed test for irresistible impulse
McNaughton Rule (1843)
“laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.”
Official Code of Georgia 16-3-2
§ 16-3-2. Mental capacity; insanity
A person shall not be found guilty of a crime if, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the person did not have mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to such act, omission, or negligence.
Official Code of Georgia 16-3-3
§ 16-3-3. Delusional compulsion
A person shall not be found guilty of a crime when, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the person, because of mental disease, injury, or congenital deficiency, acted as he did because of a delusional compulsion as to such act which overmastered his will to resist committing the crime.
Standard of Proof for NGRI in GA (+ 2 cases)
Defense must prove by POTE (Grace v. Hopper (1978) Adams v. State (1985))
O.C.G.A. 17-7-131
“… shall not include a mental state manifested only by repeated unlawful or antisocial conduct” aka antisocial personality d/o doesn’t count
O.C.G.A. 16-3-4
Not responsible if couldn’t determine right/wrong due to involuntary intoxication (either through excusable ignorance or by coercion or contrivance of another person), but yes if voluntary intoxication
Kirkland v. State (1983)
For DID - if the personality at the time of crime knew what he was doing was wrong, then defendant is held responsible
Freeman v. State (1974)
Delusional compulsion: one must show both that the act was result of delusion and also that the delusion, if true, would justify the act
Frendak v. U.S. (1979)
DC COA: Since insanity defense affirmative, involves waiver of 5A. So state can’t impose this defense on a defendant. So defendant has to consent, and thus has to be CST.
Ake v. Oklahoma (1985)
SCOTUS: Defendant has right to psychiatric expert to assist defense, both in eval and helping prepare for cross-ex by opposing experts
Chancellor v. State (1983)
GA COA: sanity or insanity is appropriate for opinion evidence, where the question will be one of sworn opinions by any witness, giving reasons, and decided by jury.
