Opinion ID: 1173257
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: temporary insanity jury instruction

Text: Defendant also claims that the trial court erred by failing to give the jury a separate instruction on temporary mental illness. Because the issue will likely arise again at defendant's new trial, we will treat it in this appeal. The requested instruction read: Temporary mental illness, or mental illness of a short duration, which existed at the time of the commission of the offense charged, is as fully recognized as a defense of mental illness of longer duration. The trial court instead gave an instruction that closely paralleled the Model Penal Code's mental illness defense, which was adopted by Utah in U.C.A., 1953, § 76-2-305. The pertinent part of the instruction read: Under the laws of this State the defendant may not be found guilty of either the felony or misdemeanor crime of failing to respond to an officer's signal to stop if, at the time of the incident in question, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfullness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. The words at the time of the incident in question adequately state that defendant's mental illness need exist only when the crime is committed. An instruction on mental illness based on the Model Penal Code adequately covers any temporary mental illness defense. Stevens v. State, 265 Ind. 396, 411, 354 N.E.2d 727 (1976). We find no error in the jury instruction as given.