Use the Return arrow, top left of your
Browser to return to previous page.
The Insanity
Plea
|
(1) California Penal Code 1016-1027
regarding pleas. |
The rest that follows are only my notes.
(1) Appropriate pages of the California Penal Code related to an insanity plea.
(2) Answers to questions which you probably have regarding nuances in the conduct of a trial where there is an insanity plea.
(3) A Public Law Research Institute Report entitled: "The Temporary Insanity Defense in California" which
explains things heard in the Binkley case, such as The M'Naghten rule.
Did you know that the The M'Naghten rule has its origins in an 1843 opinion of the English House of Lords.
A deadlock would mean in that a new Judge and jury would hear the sanity phase only.
In the guilt phase the prosecution must prove "beyond a reasonable doubt"
that the defendant committed the crime.
Jury is not aware of the penalties.
The defense has the responsibility to prove that it was "more likely
than not" that the defendant was insane at the time the crime was committed.
Jury is not aware of the possible confinement or other alternatives available
for judgement.
The mental defect had to have been "settled" at the time the defendant
committed the crime.
Mental defect alone is not a defense
Addiction to drugs or alcohol alone is not a defense.
They must have been working together and caused the defendant to
moral
actual
mental
right from wrong
what is right from wrong is up to the jury
http://w3.uchastings.edu/plri/spring95/tmpinsan.html
Currently, California criminal law does not distinguish between temporary
and permanent insanity. The only relevant issue, under California law, is
the defendant's sanity (or insanity) at the time of the crime's commission.
California Penal Code Section 25(b) ("Section 25(b)") creates a two prong test for sanity: The first prong requires a defendant to understand the nature and quality of his act. The second prong requires the defendant to be able to distinguish between right and wrong. A defendant who cannot satisfy both of these prongs is statutorily insane.
In 1994, the California State Senate amended Section 25(b). On the face of
it, the 1994 amendment seems to be little more than a codification of existing
case law; it prevents California courts from finding a defendant insane solely
on the basis of a personality or adjustment disorder, a seizure disorder,
or addiction to, or abuse of intoxicating substances.
Public Law Research Institute Report:
The Temporaty Insanity Defense in California
By: Aaron Malo, Matthew P. Barach, Joseph A. Levin
THIS REPORT WAS CREATED AS A RESEARCH PROJECT OF THE PUBLIC LAW RESEARCH INSTITUTE
AT HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW. IT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE OPINIONS, VIEWS,
OR POLICIES OF THE COLLEGE
This Paper was produced for the Public Law Research Institute at Hastings
College of the Law. Copyright 1994, University of California, Hastings College
of the Law. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute copies
for nonprofit purposes, provided that copies are distributed at or below cost,
and that the author and copyright notices are included on each copy.
Public Law Research Institute: 200 McAllister Str. San Francisco, CA 94102-4978