Opinion

State v. Shoffner

  • 31 Wis. 2d 412
  • 143 N.W.2d 458
  • 1966 Wisc. LEXIS 994
Court
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Filed
Jul 1, 1966
Status
Published
Author
Gordon
On the bench
Fairchild, Hallows, Wilkie, Gordon, Beilfuss, Heffernan
Cited by
72 cases
Authority
More cited than 7.8%

“prefer” that instruction be given

How later courts described this case

  • “prefer” that instruction be given

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Gordon, J.

(dissenting in part). In preserving the M’Naghten rule as fashioned by this court in State v. Esser (1962), 16 Wis. (2d) 567, 115 N. W. (2d) 505 , the majority opinion has my support. However, I must respectfully dissent from that portion of the court’s opinion which gives an option to a defendant to be tried under the American Law Institute definition of insanity.

*446 I consider this to be a particularly undesirable manner of backing into the American Law Institute test. The Wisconsin legislature has fixed the burden of proof of insanity on the state by sec. 957.11 (1) and (2), Stats., and it is seriously ill-advised, in my view, for this court, by a bare majority, to upset that legislative direction with an “experiment” such as is outlined in the majority opinion.

In my opinion, the judgment below should be affirmed.

I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Heffernan joins in this dissent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.