holding that, to support an insanity defense, a defendant must show either an inability to appreciate moral wrongfulness or an inability to appreciate legal wrongfulness
How later courts described this case
- holding that, to support an insanity defense, a defendant must show either an inability to appreciate moral wrongfulness or an inability to appreciate legal wrongfulness
- citing, inter alia, Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 (1952) and People v. Coleman, 126 P.2d 349 (Cal. 1942)
- “Courts in a number of jurisdictions which have considered the question have come to the same conclusion as we do, that a defendant who is incapable of understanding that his act is morally wrong is not criminally liable merely because he knows the act is unlawful.”
- see CALJIC 4.00 (1979 rev.)
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Declined to follow by State v. Cowan, 260 Mont. 510 (1993)
We decline to adopt the reasoning of the California Supreme Court in Skinner.
The opinion
BIRD, C. J., Dissenting.
In June of 1982, the voters adopted a ballot measure which radically altered the test for criminal insanity in this state. (Pen. Code, § 25, subd. (b), added by Initiative Measure, Primary Elec. June 8, 1982, popularly known as Prop. 8.) I cannot ignore the fact that they adopted language which unambiguously requires the accused to demonstrate that “he or she was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.” (Ibid., italics added.) There is nothing in the statute, in Proposition 8 as a whole, or in the ballot arguments that implies that the electorate intended “and” to be “or.” However unwise that choice, it is not within this court’s power to ignore the expression of popular will and rewrite the statute.
Since appellant failed to establish his insanity under the test enunciated in Penal Code section 25, subdivision (b), I cannot join the decision of my brethren.