Opinion ID: 2599941
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Request to Enter Insanity Plea

Text: Defendant asserts the trial court erred in refusing to permit him to enter an insanity plea late in the trial. On August 30, 1989, during the defense surrebuttal, counsel made a motion to permit defendant to enter an insanity plea, based upon recent discussions counsel had had with defense experts. To establish good cause for a belated entry of the plea, defense counsel explained that until July 31, 1989, he had not received Dr. Morganthaler's report relating that defendant suffered from brain damage. That report caused him to reconsider the issue of sanity. Thereafter, counsel continued, he asked Dr. Evans and Dr. Rosenthal their opinions concerning defendant's sanity, and both indicated that defendant met the test for insanity established in People v. Drew (1978) 22 Cal.3d 333, 149 Cal.Rptr. 275, 583 P.2d 1318 ( Drew ). [20] The trial court denied the motion, concluding that defense counsel had not established good cause for the delay in seeking to enter an insanity plea. The trial court's ruling on the issue of good cause is reviewed for abuse of discretion. ( People v. Montiel (1993) 5 Cal.4th 877, 923, 21 Cal.Rptr.2d 705, 855 P.2d 1277.) We find no such abuse. As we have noted, the Drew test for insanity is very similar to the defense of diminished capacity. ( People v. Cruz (1980) 26 Cal.3d 233, 251, 162 Cal.Rptr. 1, 605 P.2d 830; People v. Wetmore (1978) 22 Cal.3d 318, 330-331, 149 Cal.Rptr. 265, 583 P.2d 1308.) Under the Drew test, a person is legally insane if as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. ( Drew, supra, 22 Cal.3d at p. 345, 149 Cal.Rptr. 275, 583 P.2d 1318.) Defense counsel had fully prepared a diminished capacity defense and therefore should have been well aware of the possibility of an insanity defense. Furthermore, if there was error it was harmless. The jury heard an extensive presentation of evidence regarding defendant's mental state at the time of the crimes. Indeed, defense counsel told the trial court that if an insanity plea were permitted, he would present very little additional evidence; an insanity trial would focus upon specific questions related to the standard for insanity and the experts' opinions on that subject. Accordingly, we discern no reasonable probability that the jury would have accepted a defense of insanity based upon its consideration of essentially the same evidence that it considered on the very similar issue of diminished capacity. (See People v. Cruz, supra, 26 Cal.3d at p. 252, 162 Cal.Rptr. 1, 605 P.2d 830 [finding no prejudice from failure to instruct on the Drew test for insanity rather than the stricter M'Naghten test, because in rejecting the diminished capacity defense the jury necessarily rejected the evidence that might support a verdict that defendant not only had diminished capacity but was legally insane].) [21]