holding that the A.L.I. standard for insanity then applied in California, rather than the older M’Naghten rule
How later courts described this case
- holding that the A.L.I. standard for insanity then applied in California, rather than the older M’Naghten rule
- noting that the California Supreme Court has “frequently upheld on appeal verdicts which find a defendant to be sane in the face of contrary unanimous expert opinion”
- adopting the American Law Institute standard, which remained in place until a voter initiative restored the M’Naghten standard in 1982
- upholding the constitutionality of the burden on both state and federal grounds, finding the rule did not conflict with due process
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Superseded by statute, as recognized in People v. Skinner
583 P.2d 1318, 1327-28 (Cal. 1978) (noting that the California Supreme Court has “frequently upheld on appeal verdicts which find a defendant to be sane in the face of contrary unanimous expert opinion”), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in People v. Skinner, 704 P.2d 752
Disapproved on other grounds by People v. Skinner, 39 Cal. 3d 765 (1985)
22 Cal.3d 333, 351 , disapproved on another ground in Skinner, supra,
The opinion
*353 MOSK, J.
I concur in the well-reasoned majority opinion.
In response to the criticism of the dissent that in some cavalier manner we are encroaching upon the legislative preserve, I repeat the conclusion advanced in my separate concurring opinion in People v. Kelly (1973) 10 Cal.3d 565, 578 [ 111 Cal.Rptr. 171 , 516 P.2d 875 ]: the M’Naghten rule must be abandoned, the Legislature is invited to adopt a substitute therefor whenever it considers Penal Code revision, and trial courts are directed in the interim to adhere to the ALI formula (id., at p. 582).