Insanity and the Definition of Wrongfulness in California

Abstract

Although the M'Naghten Standard originated in the mid-nineteenth century, courts across the United States have continued, even up to recent times, to help clarify this commonly used definition for legal insanity. Since the reintroduction of the M'Naghten Standard in California in the early 1980s, much attention has been paid to it by the courts, especially in regard to the definition and interpretation of wrongfulness and, principally, moral wrongfulness. In order for forensic evaluators in California, as well as in other states utilizing similar definitions, to provide appropriate evaluations of mental status at the time of the offense, it is ethically necessary for them to understand and apply the relevant legal definitions developed over time through case law.

Keywords:

• insanity
• morality
• wrongfulness
• mental status at the time of the offense

Notes

¹ For a description of the ALI's Model Penal Code definition of insanity, a description of “irresistible impulse,” as well as further commentary, case law, and trial strategies surrounding the insanity defense, see Goldstein, Morse, & Shapiro (2003); Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin (2007); Rogers and Shuman (2000); and Wilkinson & Roberts (2013).

² As of 2006, five states had no insanity plea, while New Hampshire alone continued with the Product Test. See Packer (2009) for a list of the insanity definitions utilized in each state as of 2009.

³ The IDRA (1984) standard is as follows: It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution under any federal statute that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.

⁴ Essentially, under the Wild Beast Test, a defendant was insane at the time of the crime if he or she was functioning at the level of a child, brute, or wild beast.

⁵ However, in United States v. Ewing (2007), the court discussed other aspects of the entire M'Naghten ruling in which the Queen's Bench did offer more insight into their meaning of wrongfulness.

⁶ See Packer (2009) for a brief review of appellate cases from other states that have addressed the inclusion or exclusion of moral wrongfulness in the insanity definitions.

⁷ In California, the ALI's definition of insanity was adopted in 1978 in People v. Drew. Prior to the Drew decision, California had utilized M'Naghten for over 100 years. See People v. Skinner (1985) and People v. Drew (1978).

⁸ See People v. Skinner (1985) for an interesting review of the history of the insanity defense in California up to that time.

⁹ Of those states that have adopted the M'Naghten standard, the minority interpret wrongfulness as being limited to legal wrongfulness (e.g., Iowa and Kansas).

¹⁰ With regard to Skinner, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and instructed the superior court to enter a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity based on the trial judge's findings.

¹¹ Male pronouns are used throughout this paper for simplicity purposes only.

¹² See Packer (2009) for a discussion of the subjective and objective standards.

¹³ In fact, it appears the federal system utilizes only an objective standard of morality ( United States v. Ewing, 2007). This is unlike California, which still allows the fact finder to assess both the defendant's subjective (whether he truly believed his act to be justified) and an objective standard (whether he understood that society would believe his act to be justified).

¹⁴ The first author found one defendant insane under the wrongfulness prong under such a scenario. The defendant was experiencing severe auditory hallucinations while in an Administrative Segregation cell in a state prison. The combination of the severe, derogatory voices, in combination with the lack of external stimulation, in the opinion of the author, significantly impaired the defendant's reasoning abilities, though thought disorganization was not a primary symptom of his psychosis.

¹⁵ If they actually were concerned about what others thought, it would stand to reason that over time, the delusional individuals would begin questioning their beliefs given the unanimous opinions to the contrary.

¹⁶ Interestingly, as Leong (2008) points out, a Deific Decree should not result in a finding of insanity in an ALI jurisdiction, as ALI specifically involves the “criminality” of the act; there is no inclusion of moral wrongfulness.