Court Opinion

ID: 9724592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:03:40.720873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:02.869494
License: Public Domain

Wilkie, J.
{concurring). I concur in the result reached by the majority. Since, in my view, on this record Mrs. Cahill was not legally insane under the definition of insanity as stated in State v. Esser 1 by either the majority or by the dissenters, I would conclude that: (1) Mrs. Cahill was not legally insane, and (2) in reaching this conclusion we are not reaffirming the definition of insanity as stated by the majority in State v. Esser.
*181I am authorized to state that Mr. Chief Justice Cueexe joins in this opinion.

 (1962), 16 Wis. (2d) 567, 115 N. W. (2d) 505.