Court Opinion

ID: 9717404
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:02:55.285332+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:53.069723
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting in part.
I concur in that part of the opinion of the court which holds that the judgment must be reversed because of the failure to submit an instruction on manslaughter to the jury as a lesser offense.
I also concur in the statement that the concept of “irresistible impulse” or compulsive behavior is not recognized as a defense in Nebraska.
Nebraska follows the M’Naghten rule as to the defense of insanity and does not recognize a defense based upon the doctrine of irresistible impulse. “The test of responsibility for crime is the defendant’s capacity to understand the nature of the act alleged to be criminal and the ability to distinguish between right and wrong with respect to the act.” State v. Jacobs, 190 Neb. 4, 6, 205 N.W.2d 662, 663 (1973). See, also, Wright v. The People, 4 Neb. 407 (1876). “The doctrine of irresistible impulse or ‘moral insanity’ has not been recognized as a defense or excuse for crime in this state.” State v. Jacobs, supra at 6, 205 N.W.2d at 663. “ ‘The doctrine of moral insanity or uncontrollable impulse, upon which counsel seem mainly to rely, is not recognized in the jurisprudence of this state.’ We are not disposed to depart from the rule as to the test of legal responsibility thus announced, which has the support of an unbroken line of decisions in this state, beginning with the case of Wright v. People, 4 Neb. 407.” Bothwell v. State, 71 Neb. 747, 750, 99 N.W. 669, 671 (1904). See, also, State v. Long, 179 Neb. 606, 139 N.W.2d 813 (1966).
In a jurisdiction which does not recognize the doctrine of irresistible impulse, evidence of a mental condition, other than intoxication or subnormal mentality, which does not amount to legal insanity may *474not be considered in determining whether the crime charged or a lesser offense was committed. Therefore, evidence of an “irresistible impulse” without proof that the defendant suffers from intoxication or subnormal mentality or a mental disease existing to such a high degree as to overwhelm reason, judgment, and conscience so that the accused would be unable to understand the nature and quality of his act and to distinguish right from wrong is not admissible to negate specific intent.
The real danger in permitting psychiatric evidence of mental or emotional disorders short of insanity to negate intent is to substantially destroy the M’Naghten rule and to clutter practically every trial with some sort of expert opinion evidence as to whether the defendant possessed the requisite intent to commit the crime charged.
In the present case evidence of an “irresistible impulse” on the part of the defendant was inadmissible because it concededly did not amount to proof of legal insanity.
In this case the trial court was faced with a unique situation, since the two psychiatrists called by the defendant were allowed to testify without objection by the State that the defendant shot the victim as the result of an irresistible impulse. These expert witnesses testified in substance that the defendant had no significant mental illness but suffered from a compulsive neurosis characterized by high levels of anxiety and tension; that the defendant knew the nature and quality of his act and knew the difference between right and wrong; and that the defendant did not qualify for the defense of insanity under the law of Nebraska.
The opinion of the court states that the jury should have been instructed that any evidence received concerning the defendant’s mental condition would bear on the presence or absence of the intent necessary to prove the crime charged. In view of the evidence then before the jury, the effect of such an in*475struction would be to advise the jury that it might consider the evidence as to irresistible impulse in determining whether the defendant possessed the necessary intent to kill the victim.
Under the circumstances in this case and in view of the testimony of the defendant’s expert witnesses, the trial court should have instructed the jury that insanity had not been pleaded or proven. The court should have informed the jury of the elements of the insanity defense, explained that the defendant had put on no proof that he was insane, that the law therefore presumes he is sane and intended the probable consequences of his acts, and that any evidence with regard to an “irresistible impulse’’ could not be considered as a basis for a finding of insanity or that the defendant did not have the required intent at the time he committed the act charged.
Where psychiatric testimony is relevant and admissible, the trial court may require the defendant to submit to a psychiatric examination by an expert appointed by the court or selected by the State.
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1916(2) (Reissue 1979) provides that a defendant who obtains an order under the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-1912 to 29-1921 (Reissue 1979) waives his privilege against self-incrimination for the purposes of the operation of the provisions of that section. The defendant in this case moved for discovery under § 29-1912, and an order granting reciprocal discovery was made.
Such an examination is specifically authorized where the defendant has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the offense. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203 (Cum. Supp. 1982). The reasons which support the right of the State to compel such an examination where the defendant pleads insanity are equally applicable in any case where psychiatric evidence may be offered by the defendant.
As the U.S. Supreme Court observed in Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 465, 101 S. Ct. 1866, 68 L. Ed. 2d 359 (1981): “When a defendant asserts the insanity *476defense and introduces supporting psychiatric testimony, his silence may deprive the State of the only effective means it has of controverting his proof on an issue that he interjected into the case.” Even though the State in this case failed to object to the evidence of an ‘‘irresistible impulse,” fundamental fairness should prevent a defendant who uses such psychiatric testimony in his defense from denying the State an opportunity to meet and rebut that evidence. See People v Mangiapane, 85 Mich. App. 379, 271 N.W.2d 240 (1978), holding that the State is entitled to a psychiatric examination of the defendant whenever he puts his mental condition into issue in any form.
Hastings and Caporale, JJ., join in this dissent.