Court Opinion

ID: 9740320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:32:23.913165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:17.423199
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
concurring in result only.
The majority opinion reaffirms the M’Naghten test for legal insanity first enunciated by the House of Lords in 1843. In this century many jurisdictions have extended its application by engrafting some form of irresistible impulse concept. More frequently in recent years courts have adopted the American Law Institute test of legal insanity set out in section 4.01 of the Model Penal Code or a variation of it. That section provides:
“(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 (wrongfulness) of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
“(2) As used in this Article, the terms ‘mental disease or defect’ do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise anti-social conduct.”
Undoubtedly the most significant distinction between the M’Naghten test and the American Law Institute test *11is that the latter takes into account volitional impairment. It regards as being also legally insane those who, although they knew the act was wrong, were nevertheless unable to control their conduct.
Under the M’Naghten rule, a defendant who had the capacity to know what he was doing and to understand that the act was wrong is legally sane even though he is wholly unable to prevent himself from doing the act because of mental illness. Both the irresistible impulse test and the A.L.I. test expand the M’Naghten rule to include the case where mental disease produced a total incapacity for self control, even though the defendant may know the act is wrong. See Comments, Model Penal Code, § 4.01, Tent. Draft No. 4.
While several jurisdictions have adopted an irresistible impulse test, the basic objection to that test is that it is too narrow and carries a misleading implication that it applies only to sudden spontaneous acts as distinguished from insane propulsions which are accompanied by brooding or reflection.
Subsection (2) of the A.L.I. Model Penal Code test has been criticized by some psychiatrists as an unjustified restriction not psychiatrically sound and some courts have adopted only subsection (1) of the test. See, for example, United States v. Smith, 404 F. 2d 720 (6th Cir., 1968); United States v. Shapiro, 383 F. 2d 680 (7th Cir., 1967); Wion v. United States, 325 F. 2d 420 (10th Cir., 1963).
The overwhelming majority of all courts that have considered the issue within the past 25 years have recognized the inadequacy and insufficiency of the old M’Naghten test. A number of jurisdictions which generally follow the M’Naghten rule have adopted the irresistible impulse test. The A.L.I. test contained in the Model Penal Code, sometimes with minor variations, has already been approved by virtually all the United States Courts of Appeals and has also been accepted by the Legislatures and courts of a number of states. *12It desérves to be adopted by this court and this case presents a direct opportunity to do so.