# State v. Schantz

> Arizona Supreme Court · June 23, 1965 · 98 Ariz. 200

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9845908

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Joseph Alvin SCHANTZ, Appellant
- **Court:** Arizona Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 23, 1965
- **Citations:** 98 Ariz. 200; 403 P.2d 521; 1965 Ariz. LEXIS 262
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Udall
- **Judges:** Struckmeyer, McFarland, Udall, Lockwood, Bernstein
- **Cited by:** 106 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9845908

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9845908. Public record. Not legal advice.