State v. Crenshaw Defendant was deported from Canada for being in a brawl. When his wife returned to him he decapitated here because he thought she had been unfaithful. D attempted to raise the insanity defense saying he was acting under the command of the Moscovite faith which makes it necessary to kill an unfaithful wife.
- “Only persons “who have lost contact with reality so completely that they are beyond any of the influences of the criminal law,” may have the benefit of the insanity defense in a criminal case. State v. McDonald.
- It is important to note that it is society’s morals, and not the individual’s morals, that are the standard for judging moral wrong under M’Naghten.
- The defendant knew his acts were morally wrong from society’s viewpoint and also knew his acts were illegal. His personal belief that it was his duty to kill his wife for her alleged infidelity cannot serve to exculpate him from legal responsibility for his acts.
- An insanity acquittal requires the defendant to be unaware that his conduct was legally wrong. Although ignorance of the law is not, of course, a defense, knowledge of the law will be sufficient in these jurisdictions to defeat any claim under M’Naghten.
- If a defendant has sufficient awareness to realize the illegality of his conduct and to attempt to conceal his crime, doesn’t he fall, by definition, among those whose behavior is potentially deterrable
- The question is whether the defendant was able to appreciate the wrongness of the particular act he was doing at the particular time. . . . If through the disordered condition of the mind he could not reason about the matter with a moderate degree of sense and composure it may be said that he could not know what he was doing was wrong. King v. Porter.
No comments:
Post a Comment