Opinion ID: 1845609
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: assignments of error numbers five and nine

Text: By these assignments of error, the defendant contends that the trial court erred in giving the following jury instruction requested by the state: I further instruct you that any mental disorder short of legal insanity, that is, inability to distinguish between right and wrong cannot serve to negate specific intent and reduce the degree of the crime. The charge given is a correct statement of our law relative to the defense of insanity. State v. Jones, 359 So.2d 95 (La. 1978). In Louisiana, to be exempted from criminal responsibility on grounds of insanity, the defendant must persuade the jury that he had a mental disease or defect which rendered him incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with reference to the conduct in question. La.R.S. 14:14; State v. Roy, 395 So.2d 664 (La.1981); See generally, Note, The Insanity Defense in Louisiana: Presumptions, Burden of Proof, and Appellate Review, 42 La.L.Rev. 1166 (1982). Defendant further contends that the charge, by noting that nothing short of legal insanity would serve to negate specific intent and reduce the degree of the crime, may have misled the jury into believing that they could not return a verdict of guilty to a lesser included offense. The record reflects, however, that the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the elements of second degree murder and manslaughter and informed them that each was a responsive verdict in the instant case. Therefore, these assignments of error lack merit.