Opinion ID: 1145104
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: l.i. model penal code formulation

Text: We now come to the fourth test  which this jurisdiction has adopted through legislative enactment. [16] The A.L.I.  Model Penal Code formulation for negating criminal responsibility has been widely accepted in all federal circuits except the first and by approximately twenty-six other states either through case law or by statute. Considered by many to be a significant improvement over M'Naghten and other formulations, it has numerous advantages. The test attempts to move towards a formulation that is more realistic and conforms with the practical experience of psychiatrists, recognizing that either the volitional or cognitive aspects of an individual's processes may be impaired. Thus, an individual would be relieved of criminal responsibility if he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. Secondly, the test moves away from the absolute requirement of total incapacity and towards one that permits substantial incapacity. Thirdly, the test encourages maximum informational input from expert witnesses while preserving to the jury its role as trier of fact and ultimate decision-maker. As the Supreme Court of Indiana, one of the state courts that adopted the A.L.I.  Model Penal Code test, stated in Hill v. State, 252 Ind. 601, 616, 251 N.E.2d 429, 438 (1969): It appears that a rule on criminal insanity, expansible and flexible in concept, is necessary and should be advocated. The A.L.I. rule is such a rule and is an attempt to provide a framework under which the jury will be afforded a complete picture of the defendant's state of mind. It creates a formula for fact finding which takes cognizance of modern medical research in the imprecise area of mental diseases and defects... . The jury, as the trier of facts, remains the sole sentinel in the protection of both the rights of the accused and the welfare of society, enabled finally to consider all relevant facts pertaining to the defendant's mental state at the time the act was committed, and being thereby better qualified to render its ultimate moral judgment under the law. Thus, the present test attempts to alleviate the objectionable features of the previous formulations and must be looked to in deciding whether appellant's motion for a judgment of acquittal was properly denied.