Insanity

Insanity As A Trial Defense

The insanity defense is a legal argument that allows a defendant to claim that, due to mental illness, they should not be held criminally responsible for their actions. In the United States, this defense is based on the principle that criminal punishment should only apply to individuals who are capable of understanding and controlling their behavior. If a defendant cannot distinguish right from wrong or control their actions due to mental illness, criminal law allows for the possibility of acquittal or mitigation of their criminal liability.

Historically, the most influential framework for the insanity defense was established in England in 1843, with the case of Daniel M’Naghten. This case led to the creation of the M’Naghten Rule, which remains one of the most widely used standards in U.S. law. The M’Naghten Rule requires the defense to prove two elements:

1. The defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the crime.
2. As a result, the defendant either did not understand the nature and quality of the act or did not know that the act was wrong.

Although many U.S. states adopted the M’Naghten Rule, criticisms arose due to its narrow focus on cognitive understanding. It did not account for those who knew right from wrong but were unable to control their actions due to mental illness.

In response to these limitations, several states incorporated the Irresistible Impulse Test in the 19th century. This test added a volitional element to the insanity defense, allowing defendants to claim insanity if they could not control their behavior, even if they knew their actions were wrong.

The Durham Rule, introduced by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Durham v. United States (1954), took a broader approach, stating that a defendant was not criminally responsible if their unlawful conduct was the result of a mental disease or defect. This rule, however, was criticized for its vagueness and reliance on psychiatric testimony, and it was eventually abandoned in favor of other standards.

In the 1960s, the American Law Institute (ALI) Test became an influential model for the insanity defense. The ALI Test, part of the Model Penal Code, refined earlier standards by requiring that a defendant lacked substantial capacity to either:

• Appreciate the criminality of their conduct, or
• Conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.

This standard addressed both cognitive and volitional impairments, making it more flexible than the M’Naghten Rule and more precise than the Durham Rule.

Following the public outcry after John Hinckley Jr.’s acquittal by reason of insanity in his 1981 assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan, the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 was passed.

Insanity as a Defense in California Law

In California, the insanity defense follows the M’Naghten Rule, which focuses on whether the defendant understood the nature and wrongfulness of their actions at the time of the offense. Under California law, a defendant can be found not guilty by reason of insanity if they can prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they were suffering from a mental illness or defect that prevented them from:

1. Understanding the nature of their act, or
2. Knowing that their act was morally or legally wrong.

California, like many other states, places the burden of proof on the defendant. They must show that it is more likely than not that their mental illness met the legal definition of insanity at the time of the crime.

A successful insanity defense in California results in a verdict of “not guilty by reason of insanity” (NGRI). However, this does not mean the defendant is immediately set free. Instead, they are typically committed to a state mental health facility for treatment. The length of confinement is often determined by the severity of the crime and the defendant’s mental health progress. In some cases, defendants may spend more time in a mental institution than they would have in prison.

In California, the California Penal Code Section 25(b) governs the use of the insanity defense. While the state continues to adhere to the M’Naghten standard, it does not recognize defenses based solely on an inability to control one’s behavior, thereby rejecting the Irresistible Impulse Test. This reflects the state’s preference for a more traditional, cognitive approach to the insanity defense, limiting its scope primarily to the defendant’s ability to understand their actions and distinguish right from wrong.

This federal law raised the standard of proof required for an insanity defense, shifting the burden of proof to the defendant, who must now prove insanity by “clear and convincing evidence.” The Act made it much more difficult for defendants to succeed with an insanity defense in federal courts, which is why an assertive skilled federal defense attorney, like Nate Crowley, is needed to create your case.

Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity? Contact federal criminal defense attorney Nate Crowley.

Fill out our contact form on the Home Page https://www.natecrowleylaw.com/
Phone (619) 202-8188 OR email admin@crowleycrowleylaw.com