considering and rejecting defense of diminished capacity and noting the legislature “has not recognized a disease or defect of mind in which volition does not exist . . . as a defense to a prosecution for” a crime
How later courts described this case
- considering and rejecting defense of diminished capacity and noting the legislature “has not recognized a disease or defect of mind in which volition does not exist . . . as a defense to a prosecution for” a crime
- describing diminished responsibility evidence as permitting a jury to "consider defects in the volitional processes to determine the lack of deliberation and premeditation" or "the lack of malice aforethought"
- declining to adopt then-draft MPC § 4.02(1) "piecemeal" and deferring to the legislature whether to adopt or reject it as part of article 4 of the draft MPC
- noting discussion of MPC was unnecessary to ruling
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McFARLAND and UDALL, Justices
(specially concurring).
We concur in the results reached in the opinion of the majority, and in the opinion itself, except as to the discussion of the recommendations of the American Law Institute as contained in its “Model Penal Code” (proposed official draft May 1962). We do not consider this part of the opinion essential to the result reached by the majority.
There has been a great deal of study, and much written, on mental diseases as a defense for crime, including that of the American Law Institute, all of which are deserving of consideration. This court has consistently held the M’Naghten’s rules provide the best test available. State v. Preis, 89 Ariz. 336 , 362 P.2d 660 ; State v. Crose, 88 Ariz. 389 , 357 P.2d 136 ; State v. Eisenstein, 72 Ariz. 320 , 235 P.2d 1011 . We feel the majority were correct in refusing to change the M’Naghten rule, but we do not concur in the statement that “We are satisfied that Article 4 represents a desirable approach to the handling of mental defectives with criminal tendencies * * In our opinion, a careful study would have to be made as to how any of the proposals would fit our system in Arizona before a determination could be made as to whether a different system would be more desirable than the one we now have. As stated by the majority, in a well-written and scholarly opinion, this is a legislative responsibility.