Case ID: or_249/html/0469-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued March 8,
    affirmed March 27, 1968
    STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. RONALD DUANE SCHROEDER, Appellant.
    
    438 P. 2d 1023
    
      Oscar D. Howlett, Portland, argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.
    
      Jacob B. Tanser, Deputy District Attorney, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was George Van Hoomissen, District Attorney, Portland.
    Before McAllister, Presiding Justice, and Sloan and Denecke, Justices.
   PER CURIAM.

In this appeal from a conviction by the court after trial without a jury, defendant challenges the validity of the M’Naghten rule. ORS 136.410.

Defendant argues the M’Naghten rule is outmoded and should be replaced by the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code definitions of criminal responsibility. The validity of the M’Naghten rule statute and its application do not require further review by the court. State of Oregon v. Garver, 1950, 190 Or 291, 225 P2d 771, 27 ALR2d 105; Leland v. Oregon, 1952, 190 Or 598, 227 P2d 785, 343 US 790, 72 S Ct 1002, 96 L ed 1302. The argument made here must be made to the legislature.

Affirmed.