Court Opinion

ID: 9853599
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:50:54.687995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:54.934724
License: Public Domain

RICHARDSON, J.
I respectfully dissent. My objection to the majority’s approach may be briefly stated. I believe that a major change in the law of the type contemplated by the majority should be made by the Legislature. Although variously phrased, this has been the consistent, firm, and fixed position of this court for many years for reasons equally as applicable today as when first expressed.
Twenty-five years ago Justice Carter speaking in People v. Daugherty (1953) 40 Cal.2d 876, 894 [256 P.2d 911], said of a defendant’s effort to change the evolving California M’Naghten test that it “has been the rule since the first decision in this state . . . has been followed consistently . . . is the generally accepted rule . . . and if it is to be changed his argument should be addressed to the Legislature.” Justice Spence, speaking for a unanimous court in People v. Berry (1955) 44 Cal.2d 426, 433 [282 P.2d 861], and referring to a defendant’s challenge to the M’Naghten test, observed “However, regardless of the doubtful merit of defendant’s suggestion as a generally workable test, if any change is to be made in the accepted standard for determining guilt in relation to the insanity plea, the arguments for such change should be addressed to the Legislature rather than to the courts.” In 1959 it was Justice Schauer’s turn to speak, and in People v. Nash (1959) 52 Cal.2d 36, 48-49 [338 P.2d 416], he amplified the principle: “Since 1953 (when we decided Daugherty) and in 1955 (when we. decided Berry) the criticisms of M’Naughton and the reasons for our conclusion that applications for alteration of the rule should be addressed to the Legislature have not significantly changed. A proposal of defense counsel points up reason for our previous and continued reluctance to assume the expertise which would be required to formulate new standards .... [Referring to a defense counsel’s proposed reexamination of M’Naghteri] [t]he advancement of this proposal indicates that the reexamination should be by the Legislature, which is equipped for fact-finding, rather than by this court, which is traditionally *354disinclined and functionally not equipped to perform the fact-finding operation.”
Interestingly, although Justice Schauer in Nash spoke for only six members of the court, the seventh member, Justice Peters, in his concurrence commended the author of the majority opinion and, on the point before us, added, “I agree with his conclusion that, if there is to be a change in the rule of the M’Naughton case, it should be made by the Legislature and not by this court.” One year later Justice Schauer, again speaking for a unanimous court, said, “The history of the judicial and implicit legislative acceptance of M’Naughton in this state is related in the Nash case [citation]. Nothing which defendant says in the present case convinces us that we should depart from the view that, whatever we may think of the theoretic soundness of the M’Naughton tests, such tests have in effect become an integral part of the legislative scheme for the appraisal of criminal responsibility in California and any change therein should come from the Legislature.” (People v. Rittger (1960) 54 Cal.2d 720, 732 [7 Cal.Rptr. 901, 355 P.2d 645], italics added.)
Two years later it was Justice White again speaking for the entire court in People v. Darling (1962) 58 Cal.2d 15, 22-23 [22 Cal.Rptr. 484, 372 P.2d 316], who repeated the above Nash.quotation adding in response to an appeal that we adopt the so-called Durham rule that “This court, however, has consistently rejected such contentions, holding that changes, if any, are legislative matters .... We are not persuaded by the arguments advanced in the case with which we are here concerned that the issue is now a judicial rather than a legislative one.” Justice Schauer in People v. Wolff (1964) 61 Cal.2d 795, 803 [40 Cal.Rptr. 271, 394 P.2d 959], in reexpressing the Rittger principle above italicized, emphasized the existence of a unique California M’Naghten rule adding that, “. . . in evolving our own rule to meet statutory requirements, apply humane concepts, and at the same time protect society, we have reformulated the test with a variety of specifications to achieve this end.” (P. 800.)
This unbroken succession of decisions since People v. Coffman (1864) 24 Cal. 230, in 1864 has accepted the evolving M’Naghten rule and acquiescence by the Legislature as an integral part of California’s legislative scheme. We have consistently declined invitations to discard it in favor of other proposed rules for the reason, repeatedly expressed, that the Legislature is far better equipped than we, in its fact-finding capacity, to make any appropriate modifications. This principle had become so very well settled that just five years ago, by a vote of six to one, we *355applied the modified M’Naghten test without even responding to the dissenting opinion which urged adoption of the American Law Institute (ALI) standard. (People v. Kelly (1973) 10 Cal.3d 565 [111 Cal.Rptr. 171, 516 P.2d 875].)
In support of our conclusion that the Legislature has tacitly approved the M’Naghten test and that adoption of a different formulation is a matter for legislative action, we expressly noted in People v. Nash, supra, 52 Cal.2d 36, that the Legislature’s “use of the judicially construed word insanity [in 1872 and 1927] in legislation on that subject indicated its intent that the [judicial] definition should be continued . . . .” (P. 47.) We have been consistently sensitive to legislative interest in the subject. In People v. Wolff, supra, for example, one of the reasons given for our continued judicial restraint was that, “Indeed, the entire problem is currently under consideration” by the Legislature. (61 Cal.2d at p. 803.)
Although the majority declines to acknowledge the point, the foregoing considerations, noted in Wolff, are fully applicable today: There is presently pending before the Legislature a specific proposal to amend the Penal Code by adopting new section 3302, subdivision (a), which would provide that “A person is not criminally responsible for an offense if, at the time of the offense, as the result of a diseased or deranged condition of the mind he lacked the sufficient capacity to know or understand the nature and quality of his act, or to know or understand that his conduct was wrong.” (Sen. Bill No. 27 (1977-1978 Reg. Sess.) § 1.) The foregoing proposal was drafted as part of a project by a joint legislative committee to revise the Penal Code. The committee has conducted numerous hearings and has had the benefit of considerable staff and advisory services from the academic community. Significantly, the proposed section appears to be a legislative affirmation of our insanity definition in People v. Wolff.
When the Legislature is considering a legislative codification of the modified M’Naghten test, as described in Wolff, it seems to me highly inappropriate, in the light of our prior repeated insistence that this is an area of primarily legislative responsibility, for us now to ignore legislative interest and to adopt, judicially, a new test for determining criminal responsibility. This is an excellent time for us to exercise judicial restraint. We have been consistently correct in our frequent assessments that the Legislature is much better equipped functionally than are we to undertake the fact-finding determination and to make those changes in California’s modified M’Naghten test of criminal insanity.
*356The majority in proposing the ALI test insists that “we are surely enjoined to spare no effort in attempting to frame the best criteria that is currently extant.” (Ante, p. 352.) By adopting the ALI test, however, the majority of course does no “framing” whatever. Without change it simply adopts wholesale the ALI formula. The majority now proposes to abandon both deference to legislative interest and a carefully constructed accretion of California law and opt for an entirely different standard. Suddenly, “The task of describing the circumstances under which mental illness will reheve a defendant of criminal responsibility has become the duty of the judiciary.” (Ante, p. 340, italics added.) It seems fair to ask, when since 1973 (People v. Kelly, supra) did this become our duly? Why has it now become our duty? What additional “fact-finding” powers do we now possess? The answer to the last question, of course, is none. Frankly, and I say this with complete respect, there is only one explanation for this judicial U-tum, namely, impatience. The majority, wearied of waiting, and browsing among the varied offerings at a judicial smorgasbord, has picked the ALI formulation. There may be merit in the choice, but a decision to adopt it or any other proposed test and thereby abandon the carefully structured California rule, already a substantial “recast” of the original M’Naghten rule and “an integral part of the legislative scheme,” should be preceded by a much more extensive factual investigation and analysis than we are able to perform.
Furthermore, it should be observed that from the table the majority has selected warmed over food. The choice of the majority has been around awhile. Indeed, the ALI test in Tentative Draft No. 4, section 4.01, page 27, Model Penal Code, provided: “(1) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.” This language is almost precisely the test that is adopted by the majority herein. It is significant that we flatly rejected this test almost 20 years ago in People v. Nash, supra, 52 Cal.2d 36, 48, footnote 7, because we said that the Legislature was equipped, and we were not, “to perform the fact-finding operation.” We are told that, in the almost 20 years since we declined to accept it in Nash, 15 states have adopted the ALI test, indicating of course that 35 states have not. Moreover, of the 15 states, 8 have done so by legislative enactment, and only 1 state, Alaska, has adopted it judicially in the past 8 years. This can hardly be described as either a marked or inevitable trend, and suggests a very widespread skepticism as to the ALI test. The substantial majority of the states, *357including California, has been studying it legislatively and judicially for many years and has thus far refused to adopt it.
Other proposed formulations have gained momentary interest, but have been generally abandoned. These include the so-called New Hampshire (State v. Pike (1869) 49 N.H. 399; State v. Jones (1871) 50 N.H. 369) or the Durham rule (Durham v. United States (D.C.Cir. 1954) 214 F.2d 862) or that test contained in the proposed federal criminal code. As noted, the Legislature is presently contemplating still another formulation. We are not equipped to pick and choose the best among the various alternatives that are available, and we should leave the task to those who are so equipped. A legislative committee aided by staff can conduct hearings and studies, question experts, and develop a policy consensus on the questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law that are involved.
Such a legislative inquiry doubtless will reveal that the ALI test is not without its critics. Indeed, in its desire to abandon the modified California test, the majority accepts a proposed new rule which may well create an entirely new set of problems. The Legislature’s refusal thus far to adopt the ALI rule may result from its wish to learn from the English experience. As simply one illustration, it should be noted that a 1975 study of the British Home Office, Department of Health and Social Security, entitled Report of the Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders (hereafter cited as Report) dealt with the specific question of the extent to which mental disorders should constitute defenses to criminal charges. In devising its own proposed test the committee carefully considered but rejected the ALI test for reasons suggesting that it is not, to use the majority’s term, the “best criteria currently extant.”
The English committee focused on the ATI’s use of the term “mental disease or defect” and noted that such a vague undefined expression does not help to distinguish between minor and major disorders. The term has been abandoned in Britain for several years. This may be the case in the United States as well. Furthermore the Report notes that the ALI test, as with the so-called Durham rule, leaves the interpretation of “mental disease or defect” with “psychiatrists .who give evidence to the court.” The Report observes that this fact prompted the author of the Durham rule, Judge Bazelon, to abandon Durham with this comment: “In the end, after 18 years, I favored the abandonment of the Durham rule because in practice it had failed to take the issue of criminal responsibility away from the experts. Psychiatrists continued to testify to the naked conclu*358sion instead of providing information about the accused so that the jury could render the ultimate moral judgment about blameworthiness. Durham had secured little improvement over M’Naghten.” (Bazelon, Psychiatrists and the Adversary Process, Scientific Am. (June 1974) p. 230, italics added.)
The committee then opines that the emphasis on capacity “to conform,” which appears to be the only attractive portion of the ALI test, presents some very considerable additional problems, saying: “The Model Penal Code [ALI] proposal is open to the same objection as Durham in its reference to ‘mental disease or defect,’ but its second limb raises other problems. In particular the test of capacity to conform has to face a well-known philosophical criticism. How can one tell the difference between an impulse which is irresistible and one which is merely not resisted? Let us imagine two patients whose clinical symptoms appear similar, each of whom has been involved with a friend in an argument. Patient A flies into a rage and stabs his friend: patient B does not. If A is prosecuted, a psychiatrist may be ready to testify that by reason of his disease of the mind he was deprived of the capacity to conform to the law, and he will no doubt be influenced by the fact that A did not conform to it. Patient B, not having assaulted his friend, is not prosecuted, so that no court hears psychiatric evidence about his capacity to conform: but presumably a psychiatrist would say that he had such a capacity, since he did not strike his friend. Some would seek to find a way out of this argument. There are offenders whose lack of self-control shows itself not only in a single offence, but also in their response to everyday temptations or frustrations. If patient A had a history of frequent and violent loss of temper, or if under observation after the assault he reacted violently to petty frustrations in the ward, such evidence would support the claim that he is less able than most men to control his temper. If, on the other hand, he was known to be extremely self-controlled, a psychiatrist would be justified in assuming that at normal times he was able to control himself and would have to explain the assault in some other way, for example, by showing that the argument developed in such a way as to give him extreme provocation (as the psychiatric witness did in the California case of [People v.] Gorshen [(1959) 51 Cal.2d 716]). To this argument the determinist would reply that the fact remains that the man who was normally able to control himself (i.e., who normally conformed) was not able to control himself on the occasion in question, as is shown by the fact that he did not conform. Also, even the psychopath or schizophrenic who is often aggressive is not always aggressive, so that aggression on a particular occasion is not completely *359explained by the psychopathy or schizophrenia. However this may be, it will generally be agreed that most cases are of the intermediate sort in which neither the circumstances nor the offender’s usual behavior provided the obvious explanation; and in such cases it is usually fair to say that the only evidence of incapacity to conform with the law was the act itself” (Report, pp. 221-222, italics added.)
The majority in its uncritical acceptance has given no analytical consideration to problems of the type which have caused the English to reject the ALI rule. Furthermore, it seems fundamental that any “insanity” test should ideally and to the extent possible avoid the use of ambiguous standards which may be subject to varying interpretations and meanings. The ALI test includes such vague terms as “mental disease or defect,” “substantial capacity,” “appreciate criminality,” and “conform conduct.” Additionally, any proposed test should limit the extent to which psychiatrists, in Judge Bazelon’s language, may “testify to the naked conclusion” about criminal responsibility. As stressed in the new English formulation, the proposed test seeks to “(a) avoid the use of medical terms about which there may be disputed interpretations or whose meaning may change with the years; and (b) be such as to allow psychiatrists to state the facts of the defendant’s mental condition without being required to pronounce on the extent of his responsibility for his offence. Degrees of responsibility are legal, not medical, concepts.” (Report, p. 222.) The ALI test does very little to assist in either critical area. Its primary appeal is that it is different.
Professor Richard Gambino, professor of educational philosophy, Queens College, in a current article entitled The Murderous Mind: Insanity v. The Law ((Mar. 18, 1978) Saturday Review, at p. 10) traces the origins of the M’Naghten rule, and of various suggested changes in the light of more modem scientific knowledge. Professor Gambino stresses the extreme difficulty in meshing the different disciplines of psychiatry and the law, each possessing as it does its own variant definitions and standards. He emphasizes that “Psychiatry is a healing art. Its function is to understand and cure, not to define moral or legal responsibility or to accomplish justice. In fact, the profession of psychiatry does not use or recognize the terms ‘sanity’ and ‘insanity.’ They are strictly legal terms.” On the point before us, his assessment of the experience with the majority’s proposed ALI test is not encouraging. After describing the M’Naghten and Durham rules and their limitations he concludes, “In 1961, the American Law Institute recommended a new test, which was a merger of the M’Naghten and Durham rules. Unfortunately, it has served *360little purpose except to compound the difficulties of both standards.” (P. 10, italics added.)
The formulation of intelligent rules covering the assertion of insanity as a criminal defense is a very complex problem. This fact underscores the wisdom of judicial restraint. Professor Gambino cites 2 interesting experiments conducted at Stanford University in 1972 which illustrate the disturbing uncertainties which persist 135 years after M’Naghten. He reports that “Eight researchers feigned hearing Voices’ and gained admission to 12 different psychiatric hospitals. None of the eight falsified their real life history, except for the voices, nor did any of them have a history of pathological behavior. Yet in 11 of the 12 instances, the researchers were diagnosed as ‘schizophrenic,’ while in the twelfth, the diagnosis was ‘manic depressive.’ Although other patients regarded the researchers as normal, no member of the hospitals’ staff did. Then, in a follow-up experiment, the staff of a psychiatric hospital were told that one or more fake patients would be sent to them. Although none were actually sent, 41 of 193 patients admitted for treatment in the following period of time were thought to be fakes, in each case by at least one member of the hospital’s staff.” While the examples may be extreme, they do caution a judicial “go slowly” approach in this area. Assuming, as we may, the validity of the majority’s contention that in the 135 years since M’Naghten there have been many psychiatric advances, the Legislature is thoroughly justified in taking a very long and careful, indeed skeptical, look before jettisoning the existing and carefully evolved body of law which now composes the California M’Naghten rule as illustrated by Wolff. (61 Cal.2d 795 [40 Cal.Rptr. 271, 394 P.2d 959].)
I have no doubt that further improvements may be made in the techniques used to resolve the difficult issue of insanity as a defense in criminal cases. This goal is much more likely to be achieved, in my opinion, through a fact-finding process which enlists the aid of experts in the relevant disciplines who have given careful and close study to this very troublesome problem. I believe that this is what the Legislature is attempting in its evaluation of the critical medical-legal dialogue. It is a slow process. Undoubtedly, professional disagreements will appear, but as in many comparable areas there may well emerge a responsible consensus which would, by providing guidance to the Legislature, make possible a reasoned improvement over the present California rule. Such a legislative process, as repeatedly described by us, is to me a much sounder approach than that adopted by the majority which, disregarding legislative attention, chooses its own formulation predicated primarily *361and essentially upon judicial instinct, second-hand sources, and appellate argument.
I would affirm the judgment.
Clark, J., and Manuel, J., concurred.