Opinion ID: 2967845
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Insanity

Text: Reid next contends that counsel failed to adequately investigate and advise him regarding an insanity defense. Virginia law recognizes two tests by which an accused can establish criminal insanity, the M’Naghten Rule and the irresistible impulse doctrine. Bennett v. Commonwealth, 511 S.E.2d 439, 446 (Va. Ct. App. 1999). In either case, the defendant bears the burden of proving that he was insane at the time of the offense. See Vann v. Commonwealth, 544 S.E.2d 879, 882-83 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). When the corpus delicti has been established and proof adduced that the accused committed the act, it is not sufficient for the accused to raise a reasonable doubt as to his sanity; he must go one step further and prove to the satisfaction of the jury that he was insane at the time of the commission of the act. Wessells v. Commonwealth, 180 S.E. 419, 422 (Va. 1935). The M’Naghten Rule requires the defendant to prove that, because of a disease of the mind, he either did not know the nature and quality of his act or did not know that the act was wrong. See Price v. Commonwealth, 323 S.E.2d 106, 108-09 (Va. 1984); see also id. at 110 (noting that the actual M’Naghten test for insanity, stated in the disjunctive, is the rule in Virginia (emphasis added)). As the Virginia Supreme Court explained in Price, The first portion of M’Naghten relates to an accused who is psychotic to an extreme degree. It assumes an accused who, because of mental disease, did not know the nature and quality of his act; he simply did not know what he was doing. For example, in crushing the skull of a human being with an iron bar, he believed that he was smashing a glass jar. The latter portion of M’Naghten relates to an accused who knew the nature and quality of his act. He knew what he was doing; he knew that he was crushing the skull of a human being with an iron bar. However, because of mental disease, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. He believed, for example, that he was carrying out a command from God. 16 REID v. TRUE Id. at 110 (internal quotation marks omitted). The irresistible impulse defense is available when the accused’s mind has become so impaired by disease that he is totally deprived of the mental power to control or restrain his act. Bennett, 511 S.E.2d at 447 (internal quotation marks omitted). Impulsivity is the essence of this definition of insanity; planning or deliberative conduct is inconsistent with the defense. See Vann, 544 S.E.2d at 883. Reid argues that the reports of Drs. Herrick and Voskanian should have alerted counsel to the viability of an insanity defense. We disagree. It is true, as Reid notes, that both doctors concluded that Reid suffered from a mental defect in the form of brain damage stemming from the automobile accident and ensuing coma in 1968 and the seizure disorder. However, neither doctor reached conclusions that would support a finding of insanity under the M’Naghten Rule or the irresistible impulse test. In fact, Dr. Herrick concluded that, while Reid’s behavior following the crime . . . suggested he did not understand the nature, character, or consequences of the alleged offense, J.A. 104, Reid’s inability to remember the offense and the lack of an eyewitness resulted in insufficient evidence to support a conclusion that Reid was legally insane at the time of the murder, Supp. App. to State’s Br. at 51. Likewise, neither doctor concluded that Reid had totally lost the ability to control his actions, as required by the irresistible impulse test. They merely opined that his ability to do so was impaired. While such impairment is a mitigating factor for sentencing, it does not establish the existence of insanity under Virginia law.