321], pointed out the error, the instruction was changed. This can hardly be described as either a marked or inevitable trend, and suggests a very widespread skepticism as to the ALI test. This defense has been controversially applied over the years, for it has resulted in not guilty verdicts in several high-profile cases. The terms "and" and "or," clearly conjunctive and disjunctive, may have at times in the past been erroneously used interchangeably by careless courts; however, that circumstance does not permit us to be so presumptive as to conclude the people, by their initiative process, didn't mean what they clearly stated, that the conjunctive rather than the disjunctive be required and both prongs of the M'Naghten test be established in order to prove insanity as a criminal defense. (See In re Smith (1970) 3 Cal. 800-801.) 1960) p. Defendant Drew also contends that Evidence Code section 522, which requires a defendant to prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence, is unconstitutional. L.J. And at the time of the decision in People v. Kelly, supra, 10 Cal. (People v. Kelly (1973) 10 Cal. (Spelling modernized).) She had begun seeing Donald Parcher, who was a fellow mental patient, and he had mistreated her. You're all set! To the contrary, the insanity provisions of Proposition 8 elicited relatively little public comment. People v. Hernandez, (2000) 22 Cal.4th 512, 521. The mere fact that Penal Code section 25, subdivision (b), requires a most extreme and stringent test in order to establish the defense of criminal insanity does not render it unconstitutional or invalid; nor may we say the voters did not mean what they said. An insane person may therefore often know the nature and quality of his act and that it is wrong and forbidden by law, and yet commit it as a result of the mental disease." If evidence of diminished capacity is used to negate criminal intent in a crime which contains no lesser offense, however, the defendant may secure his outright acquittal and release. Justice Schauer in People v. Wolff (1964) 61 Cal. Additionally, any proposed test should limit the extent to which psychiatrists, in Judge Bazelon's language, may "testify to the naked conclusion" about criminal responsibility. (1). 1970) 426 F.2d 64, 66-67.) The definition of mental incapacity appearing in section 4.01 of the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code represents the distillation of nine years of research, exploration, and debate by the leading legal and medical minds of the country. Thus the question on appeal is not so much the substantiality of the evidence favoring the jury's finding as whether the evidence contrary to that finding is of such weight and character that the jury could not reasonably reject it. 2d 795, 803-804, and cases there cited; People v. Ruiz (1970) 11 Cal. ", Proposition 8 was therefore intended to serve as a deterrent to criminal behavior. From the earliest days of the common law, however, the courts have recognized that a few persons lack the mental capacity to conform to the strictures of the law. Defendant Betty Horn stands convicted of vehicular manslaughter. Based upon this evidence, the trial court found that defendant was sane at the time of the accident. 3d Cir. He was found not guilty by reason of his insanity. 3d 565, 580, the M'Naghten rule is not an integral part of the statutory structure of California criminal law. However, that harshness does not rise to prohibitive constitutional dimension or compel a statutory change by judicial decision; the fact that the statute compels a harsh result does not render it ambiguous and subject to interpretation. Such ability was determined by reference to the M'Naghten formula: whether he could know the nature and quality of his act or, if he did know it, whether he could know that what he was doing was wrong. It is significant that all of the parties who have submitted briefs are in agreement that the insanity provisions of Proposition 8 were intended to abrogate Drew and return to the traditional M'Naghten standard. (Goldstein, The Insanity Defense (1967) p. I believe that this is what the Legislature is attempting in its evaluation of the critical medical-legal dialogue. 14 Thus although we have today rejected the M'Naghten rule, we must nevertheless determine whether the jury's verdict based on that rule [22 Cal. 722, 724 [296 P. "It's extremely rare. 2d 153 [77 Cal. Rptr. A 2006 Supreme Court decision in Clark v . [9] The trial court rejected the insanity defense, but in doing so it expressly found that defendant met the second prong of the M'Naghten test because she was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong at the time of the incident. Second, it adds a volitional prong to the test by requiring the capacity to conform to legal requirements. Drew accused one Truman Sylling, a customer at the bar, of taking the money. 200, 210 [8 Eng. Vt.: Vt. Stats. App. 55.) 12926. Rptr. Patient B, not having assaulted his friend, is not prosecuted, so that no court hears psychiatric evidence about his capacity to conform: but presumably a psychiatrist would say that he had such a capacity, since he did not strike his friend. 340-344.) 484, 372 P.2d 316], who repeated the above Nash quotation adding in response to an appeal that we adopt the so-called Durham rule that "This court, however, has consistently rejected such contentions, holding that changes, if any, are legislative matters . We are not persuaded by the arguments advanced in the case with which we are here concerned that the issue is now a judicial rather than a legislative one." The ALI test does very little to assist in either critical area. App. 2d 426, 433 [282 P.2d 861], and referring to a defendant's challenge to the M'Naghten test, observed "However, regardless of the doubtful merit of defendant's suggestion as a generally workable test, if any change is to be made in the accepted standard for determining guilt in relation to the insanity plea, the arguments for such change should be addressed to the Legislature rather than to the courts." App. 352.) The primary manner in which the test has been modified has been by the addition of a volitional element, usually referred to as an "irresistible impulse" test, and also known as "moral insanity" or "emotional insanity." The eight shootings from July 1976 until August 1977 resulted in the deaths of six . Nor do the ballot arguments aid our inquiry. "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 his conduct to the requirements of law." Rptr. The liberalization of the M'Naghten rule, which we have already described, reached its zenith in Wolff. It seems fair to ask, when since 1973 (People v. Kelly, supra) did this become our duty? omitted.) We follow the lead of our Supreme Court and use the spelling in Clark and Finnelly's report of the case. 3d 469, 477 [96 Cal. (See United States v. Currens (3d Cir. In People v. Coffman (1864) 24 Cal. (People v. Kelly, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. On the afternoon of September 17, 1982, defendant drove her automobile into the self-service island of [158 Cal. Finally, by establishing a broad test of nonresponsibility, including elements of volition as well as cognition, the test provides the foundation on which we can order and rationalize the convoluted and occasionally inconsistent law of diminished capacity. Harry Thaw in 1905. Jan. 27, 2013 — -- A California mother accused of drowning her 3-year-old daughter walked away a free woman this past week after she was found not guilty by reason of insanity and a judge deemed her fit to reenter society. Rptr. 408].). Ann., tit. 3d 333, 341 [149 Cal. Rptr. 230, 235, the California courts have followed the M'Naghten rule to define the defense of insanity. 3(a).) (People v. Wolff, supra, 61 Cal.2d at p. The record on appeal, nevertheless, adduces substantial evidence of incapacity under the ALI criteria. We follow the spelling in the Clark and Finnelly report of the M'Naghten case. More significantly, the jurors could note that although both psychiatrists stated an opinion that Drew did not appreciate the wrongfulness of his act, nothing in their testimony explained the reasoning which led to this opinion. There are a few famous instances where the insanity defense worked despite the odds. (1954) 214 F.2d 862, 870-871; State v. White (1969) 93 Idaho 153 [456 P.2d 797, 801]; Guttmacher & Weihofen, Psychiatry and the Law (1952) p. That is a strong word, but I think the M'Naghten Rules are very difficult for conscientious people and not difficult enough for people who say 'We'll just juggle them.'" 2d 508, 95 S. Ct. 1881], in which the United States Supreme Court struck down a Maine statute which required a homicide defendant to prove that he acted in the heat of passion to reduce the offense to manslaughter; the court's language suggested broadly that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact [22 Cal. The American Law Institute takes no position as to whether the term "criminality" or the term "wrongfulness" best expresses the test of criminal responsibility; we prefer the term "criminality.". To permit a disposition to commit crime to serve as an excuse for criminal behavior would be to remove this powerful deterrent and to withdraw from the state the power to deter crime. ", Drew contends that the court's instruction denied him due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. 2d 876, 894 [256 P.2d 911], said of a defendant's effort to change the evolving California M'Naghten test that it "has been the rule since the first decision in this state has been followed consistently is the generally accepted rule and if it is to be changed his argument should be addressed to the Legislature." 3d 354] disinclined and functionally not equipped to perform the fact-finding operation. (Ibid) When insanity became a defense to a charge of crime, it was generally held that the insanity must be total: the accused had to be wholly without the capacity to understand and remember in order to be innocent by reason of insanity. She concurred with Dr. Gericke's diagnosis of his condition, adding the observation that his symptoms would be aggravated by the ingestion of alcohol, and joined in Dr. Gericke's conclusion that Drew did not understand that his assault upon Officer Bonsell was wrong. Rptr. (People v. Noah (1971) 5 Cal. 3d 3 at pp. (61 Cal. Rptr. [158 Cal. ), FN 4. The proper point of beginning for a review of such a statute is by an attempt to ascertain the intent of the voters. 1970): "If you find that the defendant was capable of knowing and understanding the nature and quality of his act and, in addition, was capable of knowing and understanding that his act was wrong, you will find that he was legally sane. Section 21 provides as to persons of sound mind "[t]he intent is manifested by the circumstances connected with the offense" and that "All persons are of sound mind who are neither idiots nor lunatics, nor affected with insanity." [2a] Although the insanity provisions of Proposition 8 are couched in the language of M'Naghten, the conjunctive "and" is used rather than the disjunctive "or" between the two prongs of the test. 38, 6-2. Furthermore, it should be observed that from the table the majority has selected warmed over food. (22 Cal.3d at p. These changes were controversial and attracted early attention of legal scholars and courts in the individual states and at the U.S. Supreme Court. dism. In Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (1974) 12 Cal. The majority in its uncritical acceptance has given no analytical consideration to problems of the type which have caused the English to reject the ALI rule. (See People v. MacPherson (1970) 2 Cal. 239, 583 P.2d 1281]. As we shall see, California's rejection of the irresistible impulse test came early (People v. Hoin, supra, 62 Cal. (22 Cal.3d at p. 803, 673 P.2d 680], the Supreme Court noted that this statutory definition of insanity "resembles the M'Naghten test rejected by this court in People v. fn. 1227, 1257.) 15. Dist. There is no indication in that disapproval, however, that the People intended to do anything except abrogate the decision in Drew. 161.295(1). 3d 1024] the court explained that there are three powerful restraints to a disposition to commit crime--the restraint of religion, the restraint of conscience, and the restraint of law. She entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. 70, 527 P.2d 622]; Jackson v. City of Sacramento (1981) 117 Cal. 2d 720, 732 [7 Cal. ), FN 11. (SeeLos Angeles County Transportation Com. 2d 36, 43-48 [338 P.2d 416].) This language is almost precisely the test that is adopted by the majority herein. FN 2. Two court-appointed psychiatrists testified at the sanity trial. The defense witnesses, however, failed to direct their testimony to the issues critical in establishing insanity under the ALI test; in consequence the record on appeal is insufficient to prove insanity as a matter of law under that test. 3d 1037] the requirement rather than by implication the disjunctive. 3d 333, 336, fn. The trial court's failure to employ the ALI test therefore constitutes prejudicial error. While fully concurring in Justice Richardson's dissenting opinion, I am compelled to emphasize the significance of the majority's holding. None of the eight falsified their real life history, except for the voices, nor did any of them have a history of pathological behavior. What additional "fact-finding" powers do we now possess? 12. Code, 1016, subds. Bigham was held at the Stanislaus County Jail and treated at a local hospital. When she called him, however, he either could not or would not come to the station. (1944) 24 Cal. App. 901, 355 P.2d 645]; People v. Nash, supra, 52 Cal. (See Goldstein, The Insanity Defense (1967) pp. 800. In People v. Wolff, supra, for example, one of the reasons given for our continued judicial restraint was that, "Indeed, the entire problem is currently under consideration" by the Legislature. ), FN 4. 765, 525 P.2d 669], we expressly repudiated the assertion that recognition of a spousal action for loss of consortium required legislative action (see pp. Defendant testified at the insanity phase of the trial. 2d 502, 509 [65 Cal. The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court with directions to enter a judgment of not guilty by reason of insanity and to take such further proceedings as are required by law. The science of psychiatry has made tremendous strides since that test was laid down in M'Naghten's Case, but the progress of science has not reached a point where its learning would compel us to require the states to eliminate the right and wrong test from their criminal law. : United States v. Chandler (1968) 393 F.2d 920. 861-862, fns. FN 2. The committee has conducted numerous hearings and has had the benefit of considerable staff and advisory services from the academic community. Ky.: Terry v. Commonwealth (1963) 371 S.W.2d 862. As Justice Frankfurter stated before the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment, "I think to have rules which cannot rationally be justified except by a process of interpretation which distorts and often practically nullifies them is not a desirable system. In particular the test of capacity to conform has to face a well-known philosophical criticism. 1979).) THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONALD JAY DREW, Defendant and Appellant, (Opinion by Tobriner, J., with Bird, C. J., Mosk and Newman, JJ., concurring. Dr. Gericke described Drew's condition as one of latent schizophrenia, characterized by repeated incidents of assaultive behavior and by conversing with inanimate objects and nonexistent persons; this condition could be controlled by medication but if left untreated would deteriorate to paranoid schizophrenia. Thus Drew is not entitled to an order directing the trial court to find him insane, but only to a new trial on the issue of sanity in which the jury is instructed under the ALI test. 2d 720, 732 [7 Cal. Similarly, in People v. Hoin (1882) 62 Cal. Two doctors testified that Bigham no longer exhibited the symptoms that led to the psychotic breakdown, the Modesto Bee reported. (Ibid), The ALI test was itself rejected four years later when the people exercised the legislative power through the retained right of initiative by enacting Proposition 8 at the June 1982 Primary Election. (b), italics added.) Drafts, Nos. conc.).) 3d 205 [85 Cal. My objection to the majority's approach may be briefly stated. (2 Wharton's Criminal Law (14th ed. "All persons are capable of committing crimes except those belonging to the following classes: "One -- Children under the age of 14, in the absence of clear proof that at the time of committing the act charged against them, they knew its wrongfulness. 3d 197, 203 [182 Cal. (See [22 Cal. 5th Cir. Merely because the language used results in the imposition of a strict standard for the defense of criminal insanity, we may not be permitted to indulge a judicial preference and conjure a judicial amendment to the statute by construing "and" to mean "or.". Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information. "The first sign usually comes from a family member, co-worker or supervisor, and [they] call me and say something is not right," he said. We have been consistently correct in our frequent assessments that the Legislature is much better equipped functionally than are we to undertake the fact-finding determination and to make those changes in California's modified M'Naghten test of criminal insanity. : United States v. Freeman, supra, 357 F.2d 606. 2d 41, 55 [52 Cal.Rptr 228, 416 P.2d 132]; People v. Wolff, supra, 61 Cal. App. There are offenders whose lack of self-control shows itself not only in a single offence, but also in their response to everyday temptations or frustrations. Ohio: State v. Statton (1969) 18 Ohio St.2d 13 [247 N.E.2d 293]. 3 [90 Cal. The Durham formulation received little support from lawmakers and courts (ibid), but a number of jurisdictions added the irresistible impulse test to the right and wrong test as the measure of criminal insanity. App. They are strictly legal terms." Rptr. But who is insane? at p. 121; italics in original.) We therefore explain our conclusion that on the present record a jury instructed under the M'Naghten rule could reasonably reject the opinions of psychiatric witnesses; finding that Drew had thus failed to prove his lack of understanding of the nature or wrongfulness of his act, the jury accordingly could return a verdict of sanity. December 8, 2020 Annie Darbinian 2020 The California Insanity Defense In California, defendants in criminal cases are given five options of pleas, one of which is "not guilty by reason of insanity." This plea was created by California Penal Code Section 25, also known as "the insanity defense." Durham. 2d 795, was issued the Legislature had before it a bill which would have added an element of volition to the insanity test. (See People v. Kelly, supra, 10 Cal.3d at p. (People v. Wolff, supra, 61 Cal.2d at pp. The jurors, however, are not automatically required to render a verdict which conforms to the expert opinion. 3d 1022] (1907) 150 Cal. FN 13. While the ballot pamphlet makes clear that Proposition 8 was intended, in part, to provide a more stringent standard for insanity than the "broad test of nonresponsibility" adopted in Drew, it does not provide guidance in determining what the new test was to be. 3d 1015]. But such a test is grossly unrealistic. Code, 415), Drew pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. That section added section 28 to article I of the state Constitution. (Pen. 2d 795, who knew that killing his mother was murder but was unable emotionally to control his conduct despite that knowledge; the defendant in People v. Robles (1970) 2 Cal. Rptr. "[T]he M'Naghten test focuses on an accused's capacity to make a simple moral judgment; it is, therefore, geared to the traditional criminal law requirement of a mens rea." 200, 210 [8 Eng. (Goldstein, The Insanity Defense, supra, p. Although the conclusion reached by the majority that the voters, by enacting Proposition 8 which added Penal Code section 25, subdivision (b), merely reestablished the "M'Naghten " standard for establishing criminal insanity as a defense is judicially and humanistically appealing, I cannot join in that conclusion. We accept this blurred statement for what it appears to be, a careless draft, rather than divining in it some inexplicable regression by California's citizens to medieval barbarism. 30.) Pen. Her judgment, in Mertz' opinion, was seriously impaired so that she could not act in a responsible way. A legislative committee aided by staff can conduct hearings and studies, question experts, and develop a policy consensus on the questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law that are involved. Nothing which defendant says in the present case convinces us that we should depart from the view that, whatever we may think of the theoretic soundness of the M'Naughton tests, such tests have in effect become an integral part of the legislative scheme for the appraisal of criminal responsibility in California and any change therein should come from the Legislature." In short, "this rule, broadly stated, tells jurors to acquit by reason of insanity if they find the defendant had a mental disease which kept him from controlling his conduct." Such a person has been allowed to remain a danger to himself and to society whenever, under M'Naghten, he is imprisoned without being afforded such treatment as may produce rehabilitation and is later, potentially recidivistic, released." We agree with this assessment that the new statute "restores the traditional M'Naghten rule.". : United States v. Smith, supra, 404 F.2d 720. [4] Finally, in determining the intent of a statutory enactment it is important to consider the state of the law as it existed prior to the enactment of the provision at issue. Quin Denvir, State Public Defender, Charles M. Sevilla, Deputy State Public Defender, Linda E. Shostak, Christina Hall, Roy M. Bartlett and Morrison & Foerster as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant. We also created the doctrine of diminished capacity specifically to "ameliorate the law governing criminal responsibility prescribed by the M'Naghten rule" (People v. Henderson (1963) 60 Cal. The foregoing proposal was drafted as part of a project by a joint legislative committee to revise the Penal Code. (Report, pp. That conjunctive is too thin a reed to support such a massive doctrinal transformation. January 25, 2013, 11:05 AM Jan. 27, 2013 -- A California mother accused of drowning her 3-year-old daughter walked away a free woman this past week after she was found not guilty by reason of insanity and a judge deemed her fit to reenter society. [8] The People, while agreeing that section 25, subdivision (b) reinstates the M'Naghten standard, urge that the two prongs of the M'Naghten test are really the same thing. ], This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. In this instance, prior to the initiative election, Proposition 8 received widespread publicity. (Perkins on Criminal Law, supra, at p. We conclude that it does not and consequently hold that the initiative measure reinstated the California M'Naghten right and wrong test as the measure of criminal insanity in this state. In this case in addition to the briefs from defendant and the People we have accepted amicus curiae briefs from the State Public Defender and the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support of defendant, and from the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in support of the People. 10 [22 Cal. In Drew the Supreme Court judicially abandoned M'Naghten, but as the commentator noted in People v. Drew --Will California's New Insanity Test Ensure a More Accurate Determination of Insanity (1980) 17 San Diego L.Rev. 266].) ), Another test developed was the Durham [Durham v. United States (D.C. Cir. App. Code, 8.01. Officers Guerrero and Bonsell arrived at the bar. On that day the Attorney General issued his Attorney General's Guide to Proposition 8, Victims' Bill of Rights. Defendant argues that Proposition 8 was not intended to create a new test of insanity, but was only intended to abrogate the decision in Drew and to return to California's version of the M'Naghten right and wrong test for criminal insanity. 3d 251, 258 [186 Cal. 3d 565 [111 Cal. (61 Cal.2d at p. on Capital Punishment, 1949-1953, p. 7 Citing its decision in Wolff, the California Supreme Court later summarized the test of insanity in California this way: "Insanity, under the California M'Naughton test, denotes a mental condition which renders a person incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his act, or incapable of distinguishing right from wrong in relation to that act." (People v. Smith (1983) 34 Cal. Even when people are recognized to be severely mentally ill, many public attitudes are, 'I don't care what they did, they should be punished. ), While California appellate decisions have always stated the test in terms of whether the accused could know the wrongfulness of his conduct, the courts have nevertheless from time to time been lax in their statement of the M'Naghten standard. A person who is capable of understanding the nature and quality of her action is not necessarily capable of appreciating the wrongfulness of her conduct. Daniel M'Naghten was inconsistent in the spelling of his name, and courts and commentators ever since have shared in that inconsistency. Finally section 26 specifies that "All persons are capable of committing crimes except those belonging to the following classes" and includes among those classes "Idiots" and "Lunatics and insane persons." Rptr. (Sherry, Penal Code Revision Project -- Progress Report (1968) 43 State Bar J.