HIGHLIGHTING DEFENSES: INSANITY

The term "insanity" is often thrown around in the news and other sources that purport to legally analyze the popular crime stories of the day. In California, insanity is recognized, but it has a very specific standard in order for one to successfully invoke it as a defense.

Most crimes have a mens rea requirement, meaning that a defendant must have the mental state required (usually by statute) in order to be found guilty of that particular crime. An insanity defense attacks the notion that the defendant has the required mens rea. People are presumed sane when they are charged with a crime. If you his decide to use an insanity defense, you have the burden of persuasion, which means that you must convince the jury that you are in fact insane.

Rationales for the Insanity Defense

Many people argue that the insanity defense is necessary because one who commits a crime while insane is not morally responsible. Others note that traditional punishments would be ineffective against those who commit a crime while insane. This is why those who are deemed to be insane are often admitted to facilities that will hold them, rendering them incapable of committing another crime, and also provide treatment if it is appropriate.

California's Standard for Insanity

In California, the standard for insanity is measured under the "M'Naghten Test." In order to satisfy the requirements under M'Naghten, an accused must have been unable to understand the nature of his or her actions, and unable to distinguish right from wrong. So, someone who suffers from an anxiety disorder or depression is not protected by the insanity defense because emotional disturbance does not necessarily mean that a person's moral center is off. In other words, a person who goes out and commits homicide because they think they are being attacked by a monster probably would be able to invoke the defense, but one who commits homicide because they are depressed over a recent break-up or anxious over a job loss would not. Also, being intoxicated or under the influence of a controlled substance would not qualify under the insanity defense. For more information on the insanity defense, see California Penal Code § 25.

7/11 Stick-Up in We-Ho

In 2000, a 7-11 in West Los Angeles was robbed at gunpoint, allegedly by the defendant, Charles Phillips. (People v. Phillips (2000) 83 Cal. App.4th 170.) Phillips' counsel put forward the defense insanity after presenting evidence from a psychologist who testified that Phillips' IQ level was 69, and therefore was classified as mentally retarded. He had poor impulse control and was identified as a follower. Phillips, however, knew what he was doing was wrong, and that alone was enough to render him unable to use the insanity defense. The court held that the "test for idiocy is the same as that for insanity."