Temporary insanity: It is possible for a defendant to be temporarily insane. In other words, a person is not entitled to engage in criminal conduct with complete immunity just because she coincidentally suffers from a mental disease or defect. Consider this situation: If the defendant, as a result of schizophrenia (mental illness), hears imagined voices that instruct her to commit an illegal act, and she knows the nature and consequences of the act she was instructed to commit, and she understands that the act is morally wrong, then there is no reason to consider her schizophrenia as a defense because it does not matter if the voices were imaged or real. In essence, the defendant cannot claim that she committed a crime as a result of insanity if she understood the nature and consequences of her criminal conduct and that she also knew her criminal conduct was morally wrong, even if she actually suffers, coincidentally, from a mental illness. In other words, she does not have to prove that she 1) did not understand the nature and quality of her act, and 2) she lacked an understanding that her conduct was morally wrong the defendant has to show only one set of facts or the other for her insanity defense claim to be applicable.ĭefense Limitations: One of the limitations to an insanity defense is that the criminal conduct must have resulted from a mental disease or defect. Note: The defendant does not have to show both factors are present in her insanity defense. In this situation, the defendant’s mental disease or defect precludes her from understanding what is actually happening.Įxample II: The defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity of the crime of theft, if the defendant, as a result of a mental disease or defect, does not know that taking another person’s personal property without consent or legal justification is morally wrong. In criminal law, a criminal defendant is considered insane if at the time she committed the crime she is so impaired by mental disease or illness that she did not know the nature and quality of her act or that her conduct was morally wrong.Ī defendant does not know the nature and quality of her act when she does not understand its physical nature and consequences.įor example, the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity of the crime of vehicular manslaughter, if the defendant, as a result of a mental disease or defect, truly believed that she was driving a vehicle in a NASCAR video game, when in reality, she killed another person when she drove her real vehicle into oncoming traffic. If a person can not intend to commit an act, or know of the wrongdoing of her act, due to a mental disease or defect, than she is entitled to an acquittal of the criminal charges.
Note: Mens rea is the knowledge of wrongdoing that makes up a part of most crimes. This occurs where a mental disease or defect prevents the defendant from mentally establishing the mens rea required to commit the criminal offense ( CalCrim No. In California, a criminal defendant is entitled to an acquittal if it is determined that she was legally insane at the time she committed a crime.
0 kommentar(er)
