Court Opinion

ID: 9720856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:43:10.334487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:21.764325
License: Public Domain

UHLENHOPP, Justice
(dissenting).
I. I have two problems with the majority opinion. In the first place, I do not agree with divisions III and IV and would reverse for a new trial. A person may know that an act violates the law but, from mental disease, not know that violation of law is wrong.
Defendant adequately alerted the trial court to his objection to the “legal” test of right and wrong. He did so several times during voir dire examination of the prospective jurors. He did so in his motion for directed verdict; the State’s psychiatrist in testifying had restricted his opinion on right and wrong to the legal sense. (“Q. Were you talking about in terms that he knew it was a crime and would be punished? A. Yes. Q. That’s how you meant it? A. Yes.”) Defendant alerted the court again in his objections to Instruction 8, in which the court stated inter alia that “you are not interested in his knowledge of mor*187al judgments as such, or the rightfulness or wrongfulness of things in general, but rather you must determine defendant’s knowledge of wrongfulness so far as the acts charged are concerned.” Defendant’s exceptions to this instruction included the statement that he objected “for failure of the Court to instruct the jury that the test of wrongfulness is a moral test.” The county attorney responded, “If it is a violation of a rule of society as defined as law then acting illegally and know it is acting wrong. Wrong is acting contrary to the law.” The lines were thus drawn before the court. Defendant satisfied the rule requiring him to “alert” the trial court. State v. Bell, 223 N.W.2d 181, 185 (Iowa 1974).
As to the merits of this issue, we follow the M’Naghten right and wrong test of sanity. The problem relates to the meaning of “right and wrong.” Should a person be held sane, for criminal law purposes, if he knows that a law prohibits the act (the legal test)? Or should he nonetheless be held insane if, from mental disease, he does not know the difference between good and evil — does not know that violation of law is bad — although he comprehends that the act is proscribed by law (the moral test)? The numerical majority view in this country is that right and wrong as used in M’Naghten means the defendant’s ability to distinguish that which is morally right from that which is morally wrong. See, e. g., Sauer v. United States, 241 F.2d 640, 649 (9th Cir. 1957); State v. Corley, 108 Ariz. 240, 243, 495 P.2d 470, 473 (1972); People v. Schmidt, 216 N.Y. 324, 339, 110 N.E. 945, 949 (1915). The minority view is that the M’Naghten rule focuses on the defendant’s ability to recognize whether his act was legally wrong. See, e. g., People v. Perez, 9 Cal.3d 651, 660, 108 Cal.Rptr. 474, 479, 510 P.2d 1026, 1031 (1973); State v. Andrews, 187 Kan. 458, 469, 357 P.2d 739, 747 (1960); McElroy v. State, 146 Tenn. 442, 448-49, 242 S.W. 883, 884-85 (1922).
One argument in support of the majority rule is essentially historical. In a landmark case on this issue, Judge Cardozo noted that under pre-M’Naghten English law “the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong imported a capacity to distinguish between good and evil as abstract qualities.” Schmidt, 216 N.Y. at 334, 110 N.E. at 947. Cardozo saw “nothing to justify the belief that the words right and wrong, when they became limited by M’Naghten’s Case to the right and wrong of the particular act, cast off their meaning as terms of morals, and became terms of pure legality.” Id.
A second and perhaps stronger argument for the majority position is that a defendant’s ignorance or knowledge of legal wrong bears no necessary relation to mental health. See Cohen, Criminal Responsibility and the Knowledge of Right and Wrong, 14 U.Miami L.Rev. 30, 51 (1959). Certainly situations may exist in which a person would not know what is legally right and what is legally wrong, yet we would be reluctant to find that lack of knowledge to be an indication of mental illness. By the same token, situations may exist in which a defendant is cognizant of the criminality of an act, yet our credibility would be strained if we were to say that such cognizance is conclusive evidence of sanity. Judge Cardozo poses the hypothetical case of a mother who kills her child due to “an insane delusion that God has appeared to her and ordained the sacrifice,” even though she knows the act to be illegal. “It seems a mockery to say that, within the meaning of the [rule], she knows that the act is wrong.” Schmidt, 216 N.Y. at 339, 110 N.E. at 949.
The editors state in 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 36, at 120-21 (1965), “According to the prevailing view, the ‘right and wrong’ referred to in the M’Naghten test means moral right and wrong.” Writers of this view include the authors of 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law & Procedure § 39, at 88-89 (Anderson 1957) (“The application of the right and wrong test does not depend upon an appreciation by the defendant of the legality or illegality of his act. The question is whether he knew that it was morally wrong, rather than whether he knew it was illegal. A contrary view would make ignorance of the law a defense.”); 2 *188Wharton’s Criminal Law § 100, at 10 (14th ed. Torcia 1979) (“It is noteworthy that the M’Naghten test focuses on an accused’s capacity to make a simple moral judgment; it is, therefore, geared to the traditional criminal law requirement of a mens rea.”); and H. Weihofen, Mental Disorder as a Criminal Defense 79-80 (1954) (“In Tennessee and Texas, it has been held that knowledge of the unlawfulness of the act is sufficient to render a defendant criminally responsible, and that an insane delusion that the deed was commanded by God, though known to be a violation of the temporal law, is no defense. Such a rule seems to hold responsible for crime persons suffering from some of the most dangerous types of mental disorder.”).
As stated in 1 Burdick, The Law of Crime § 211, at 280 (1946):
Whether or not the accused knew, or had capacity to know, that his act was “wrong”, says the rule. What is the meaning of this word “wrong”? Does it mean moral wrong, or is its meaning limited to wrong in the sense of legal wrong, against the law of the land? The earlier phrase was “good and evil”, being later replaced by “right and wrong”. It would seem that “wrong” was used synonymously with “evil” and meant that which is opposed to “good”, or “right”. In other words, “wrong” was used in a broad sense, signifying what is considered wrong, not by one’s own individual views, but by generally accepted moral standards.
The author states in 1 Taylor’s Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence 667-68 (10th ed. Smith 1948):
It has been objected that the legal test is insufficient for the purpose intended: it cannot, in a large majority of cases, enable a distinction to be made between the insane homicide and the sane criminal. Many insane persons have committed acts which they knew to be wrong, and of the criminality of which they were at the time fully conscious. They have been known to commit murder in order to receive the punishment of death; and, therefore, they must have been conscious of the wrongfulness, or rather of the illegality, of the act which they were perpetrating, and must have known that they were committing an offence against the laws of man.
The legal test of a knowledge of the nature of the crime, or of right and wrong, may result in inconsistent and even conflicting verdicts.
The writer states in Cohen, Criminal Responsibility and the Knowledge of Right and Wrong, 14 U.Miami L.Rev. 30, 50-51 (1959):
Suppose it is the defendant’s knowledge of legal wrongness which we wish to ascertain. How then are we to go about doing so? We will not be satisfied by simply asking him; nor can we, under the circumstances, assume that his conduct is indicative of his knowledge. What is apparent upon reflection is that, in a vast number of situations, a great number of citizens would not know what is legally right and what is legally wrong. Usually this is due to simple ignorance of the law, and this ignorance is understandable in the light of the complexities and conflicts of our legal system. Therefore, in most instances, the defendant is presumed to know the law; but in this area, where knowledge is the very point at issue, such a presumption may not be involved. And of course the right and wrong tests give no indication of just when or why such a presumption should not be applied. The common ignorance of legal wrong, which makes this presumption necessary, certainly bears no relation to the state of one’s mental health. In many cases the ignorance of what is legally right and wrong is quite justifiable, as when a case is not clearly covered by law, and has not yet been decided by the courts. If this kind of ignorance of right and wrong were an indication of insanity, most of the judges, and all of the lawyers would have to be committed to an asylum.
Another writer states in Morris, “Wrong” In the McNaughten Rules, 16 Mod.L.Rev. 435, 440 (1953):
*189It is submitted that the interpretation placed on this limb of the M’Naughten rules by Dixon J. and R. v. Porter [55 C.L.R. 182, 189-90 (1933)] and by Dixon C. J., Webb and Kitto JJ. in Stapleton v. The Queen [86 C.L.R. 358, 375 (1952)] is more accurate than the Codere-Windle [12 Crim.App. 21, 27-28 (1916); [1952] 2 Q.B. 826, 834] “illegality” interpretation and will tend to work greater justice, preserving as it does the power of the jury in an area where lawyers have shown themselves ill at ease.
Whether the test be phrased on the accused’s ability to reach “a calm judgment in the character of the act” (in Stephen’s terms) or “to think rationally of the reasons which to ordinary people make that act right or wrong — to reason about the matter with a moderate degree of sense and composure” (in the terms used by Dixon J.), it is submitted that such formulations are clearly preferable in law and practice to focusing the inquiry on the accused’s knowledge of the illegality of his act. The “illegality” test can serve only to withdraw issues from the jury which should be left to them, or yet further to strain the consciences of counsel setting up the defence of insanity-
See also United States v. Brawner, 153 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 23-24, 471 F.2d 969, 991-92 (D.C.Cir.1972); Sauer v. United States, 241 F.2d 640, 648 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 354 U.S. 940, 77 S.Ct. 1405, 1 L.Ed.2d 1539 (1957); Holloway v. United States, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 3, 4, 148 F.2d 665, 666 (D.C.Cir.1945); Kearney v. State, 68 Miss. 233, 240-41, 8 So. 292, 294 (1890).
An insanity test based on knowledge that an act is legally forbidden is too narrow. A schizoid might have the mental acuity to know that a given act is proscribed by law, yet from advanced schizophrenia be utterly without comprehension that the act, or any law violation, is wrong. The artificial legal test would send such an insane person to prison. Conversely a person might know a given act is wrong in a general sense and yet not realize it is legally proscribed; he should be answerable, as ignorance of law is no excuse. The reasons in support of the majority rule are persuasive, and I would have us join those courts which hold the M’Naghten rule refers to the defendant’s ability to distinguish that which is morally right from that which is morally wrong.
I would hasten, however, to dispel a misconception. The M’Naghten rule requires that the defendant understand the act is wrong according to general mores, not that it be wrong according to his personal views on morality. See People v. Irwin, 166 Misc. 751, 761, 4 N.Y.S.2d 548, 558 (1938). Thus, whether the defendant personally believes the act is moral is irrelevant. The question is whether he knows that the act is wrong according to society’s standards of morality.
I recognize that society’s moral standards are codified in its laws. Hence a defendant’s knowledge that an act is forbidden by law will in most cases permit an inference that he knows the act is wrong according to generally accepted standards. Schmidt, 216 N.Y. at 340, 110 N.E. at 949. Yet the ultimate question remains whether the defendant knows the act is wrong according to public standards of morality. Therefore his knowledge that an act is legally proscribed does not establish conclusively that he is able to distinguish “right” from “wrong.”
I would hold the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that right and wrong, as used in the M’Naghten rule, refer to defendant’s ability to distinguish that which is morally right from that which is morally wrong.
II. In the second place I have difficulty with Instructions 13, 14, and 15 by the trial court, treated in division I of the majority opinion. In Instruction 9 the court dealt with the propositions the State had to prove to establish sanity, and concluded:
If the State has failed to establish both of the foregoing propositions beyond a reasonable doubt, then you should find defendant not guilty by reason of insanity-
If the State has established both of the foregoing propositions beyond a reasona*190ble doubt, then you should proceed to consider whether or not the defendant is guilty of any of the offenses charged against him.
In Instructions 13, 14, and 15 the court dealt with the propositions the State had to prove to establish respectively, first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and manslaughter. These propositions do not include proof of sanity. The same problem arises in all three instructions; I will therefore deal only with Instruction 13. After enumerating the propositions the court stated:
If the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all of the foregoing propositions, then you will be warranted in finding the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree; but if the State has failed to prove any one or more of said propositions beyond a reasonable doubt, then you will find the defendant not guilty and you will then determine whether the defendant is guilty of the crime of murder in the second degree.
My problem is with the unqualified statement here, “then you will be warranted in finding the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree,” without any reference to the insanity issue.
Two lines of decisions are involved. One line holds that all jury instructions in a criminal case are to be read together in determining their meaning. See, e. g., State v. Holmes, 276 N.W.2d 823, 826 (Iowa 1979); State v. Templeton, 258 N.W.2d 380, 383 (Iowa 1977); State v. Buchanan, 207 N.W.2d 784, 787 (Iowa 1973). The other line of cases holds that conflicting instructions do not cure each other, since we have no means of knowing which instruction the jury followed. See, e. g., Bauman v. City of Waverly, 164 N.W.2d 840, 844-45 (Iowa 1969); State v. Wilson, 234 Iowa 60, 89-90, 11 N.W.2d 737, 752 (1943); State v. Glaze, 177 Iowa 457, 461, 159 N.W. 260, 262 (1916).
The question at this point is which of the two lines of cases applies. Certainly if the trial court had included in Instruction 13 some reference to the insanity issue as previously instructed, conflict between that instruction and Instruction 9 would have been alleviated.
Since I would reverse for a new trial anyway, no necessity exists to say whether the Holmes or the Bauman line applies in this situation. The trial court could avoid the problem on retrial by making reference in Instructions 13, 14, and 15 to the State’s added burden of establishing sanity. Hence I would not decide this problem.
III. I agree with the remainder of the majority opinion, but would reverse the judgment on the issue of the meaning of right and wrong under M’Naghten.
McCORMICK and ALLBEE, JJ., join in this dissent.