*1 No. 16877. In Bank. Dec. [Crim. 1973.] PEOPLE,
THE Plaintiff and Respondent, KELLY, DAWN
VALERIE Defendant Appellant.
Counsel Court, for De- Hutchens, under by Supreme
Jаmes A. appointment and fendant Appellant. Hinz, Jr., General, Chief Assistant Edward A. J. Attorney
Evelle Younger, General, James, Elaine General, Attorney E. Assistant William Attorney - Jr., Alexander, and D. A. Patrick J. Harley Mayfield, Deputy Hennessey, General, and for Plaintiff Attorneys Respondent.
Opinion one was in count
SULLIVAN, Dawn Kelly J. Defendant Valerie charged a with intent commit of an information with assault with deadly weapon Code, 217),1 (Pen. murder murder in count two thereof attempted and 187, (§§ 664) deadly and in count three with assault with weapon (a)). subd. (§ of force great bodily injury means by likely produce to all reason of insanity not and not Defendant guilty guilty pleaded waived, were dismissed counts one and two counts. Trial by jury of evi of insufficiency the court on the motion on ground People’s dence, with a deadly defendant of assault weapon and court found guilty found that (a). The court thereafter violation of section subdivision defendant was sane at the time the offense was Impo legally committed. for defendant was sition of sentence was and granted probation suspended of five terms and conditions. She under years appeals specified (§ from the of conviction. judgment the fall
Defendant has used ever since she was 15 old.2 In years drugs 1Hereafter, indicated, to the unless otherwise all section references are Penal Code. defendant, just following police, parents 2In a call her to the then years old, drugs. spent custody being She was taken into under the influence habit-forming county health clinic for abuse of three weeks in ward of mental drugs voluntarily years’ probation. two In December she and was released on drugs. being again found under the influence of Hospital, entered Patton State after drugs later, using away hospital but refrained from Two months she ran old, she was she mescaline yeаrs when began taking
LSD, times in the to the those months using drugs leading up 6, 1970, offense. On December her received call that parents telephone defendant was held at the located at the An- substation Los being police International found geles after about the Airport being wandering airport call, under the influence of her In to the drugs. response parents picked defendant at up drove back to their home in airport Diego. San they she at defendant’s Although recognized normally, acting drove to her own where she request they apartment night. spent On the next December her mother morning, telephoned and asked to be driven to her home. did but Mrs. so noticed parents’ Kelly there”; that defendant “wasn’t she seemed to be “[j]ust wandering” told her noises, mother she heard lot “a and a lot of talk people 3,” *4 . . . ing Mrs. Kelly made defendant into and lie change pajаmas down, and then went into the kitchen to defendant’s breakfast. prepare thereafter, Shortly and, defendant entered the kitchen while Mrs. Kelly stove, was turned toward the stabbed her mother with repeatedly array an called, kitchen The arrested, knives. were defendant was police and as eventually indicated. charged already 14, 1971,
On December the case trial proceeded to before the court without sitting a The jury.4 waived their to a parties bifurcated trial right on the issues Code, and separate 1026), guilt insanity (Pen. and § agreed that the court trial, evidence upon at a receiving could single separately decide the two issues after counsel to as allowing to each. argue (People Dessauer (1952) 238]; Witkin, see generally Cal. Criminal Procedure (1963) 508.) §
Much of the evidence at the trial presented consisted of the and reports testimony seven Since there psychiatrists. was substantial agreement until period preceding the instant offense. In November a about month involved, before the offense here again defendant was custody drug taken into abuse and spent days several county in the mental health clinic after which she was released. evidence, psychiatric 3In a de report made attack and into after introduced thought fendant this parents described her hallucinations at time. She that her “were parents the devils.” She would talk to her “but not out loud.” Her “told” mother devils,” something “they her that to going had “realized that was die defendant they going —that to kill were me.” court, tried, doubting 4Before be her competency, defendant could the trial ordered 1368.) (Pen. Code, hearing presently a §§ whether sane. determine she was her committed to court found defendant was insane and ordered Pаtton Code, (Pen. 1370.) § State was Hospital. She remained there for nine months and (Pen. September being released to stand trial. after certified as sane and able Code, them, their we summarize illustrative among briefly testimony, referring of it in the footnotes. examples
Defendant suffered from wit- to one personality problems—according an ness a sane underlying How- schizophrenia—but normally person.5 ever, her a over two-month ingestion drugs repeated had at- so on period triggered legitimate day psychosis6 tack, Nevertheless, defendant was unable to right distinguish wrong.7 testimony 5The psychiatrists of several showed that underlying defendant had per sonality accompanied by defects a “schizoid personality,” tendency which. denotes a reality to withdraw from but is not schizophrenia. as severe as overtly “She was not sane, schizophrenic. Normally . . . but she did have a сharacter disorder before [even period drug abuse].” Vines, psychiatrist 6Dr. Hospital from Patton State who was called as witness court, on behalf of the response that, testified in prosecution examination opinion, in his psychotic early as November one month before the line, He attack. continued: “From what we know of the abuse of LSD and/or mesca trips 50 to 100 over a one period enough or two-month have would been to, psychotic, make her a condition referred psychiatrically, as a pathological intoxi cation, damage brought that the hallucinogen, so brain my about opinion, dingy, would have made psychotic, or period using insane—and I’m these words interchangeably—for time, almost considerable so that one additional might mescaline trip very well not have made difference. “Q. drugs But if during she hadn’t taken you time that de- sсribed, telling truth, presuming you she was your opinion, would she *5 psychotic have been barring on December drugs? 7th use of “A. think I she would have sane at been that time—December 7th—if she had drug avoided abuse period for that one or two-month that she referred to. “Q. Doctor, And, presuming that she drugs had not taken before December 7th two, span degree did, within the time of a month or to the your that she opinion, would she have stabbed her mother? very
“A. I doubt that she would have much.” Testimony However, psychiatrists them, of other opinion. corroborated this one of Lengyel, Dr. testified for the court that schizophrenia defendant’s would have devel- oped drugs. even if she had not taken 7According to psychiatrists, three different whose' reports were admitted evi into dence, psychotic defendant was or insane at the report time offense. The Strauss, offense, year Dr. Paul made approximately one after the is illustrative: sane, my opinion, “Evaluation and Kelly Recommendations: In Miss is presently adequate reality, charges is in contact with against knows the nature of the her and opinion cooperate attorney, my can with her if she so It is also chooses. that Miss Kelly she did legally is, charged; was insane at the time crime with which she is that right wrong doing not know and could not have refrained from wrong my she so chose. opinion, In she had a pre-existing upon mental condition if which superimposed brought was intoxication which about a condition of intoxication) psychosis (pathological blatant which was in effect the time of her custody. crime. portant period would extremely When ii she is released from I it would im- think be that she supervision be maintained under the of the court for an extended gets years adequate psychiatric of at least two I see that she aftercare. parents appears also recommend that not live be she with her since this (Italics added.) extremely stressful for her.” that were the events conscious in that she could was perceive defendant talcing place.8 was not heard considerable testimony
The trial court who, unable or alcohol is as a after ingesting drugs acting simply person Rather, was deemed abuse and reason reality drug properly. perceive that would the indirect cause of a remain legitimate, temporary psychosis there was Finally, general even when defendant was off drugs.9 temporarily defendant, latent still a “brittle” although agreement tendencies, sane at the time of trial. was schizophrenic evidence, At and defense counsel the conclusion of all prosecutor of the case. their to the court оn arguments guilt phase presented that defendant did the acts constituting The court then in essence found that at such time she was not in a state an assault with a deadly weapon, unconsciousness,10 as and that defendant was “guilty charged.” the time of the offense questioning by defense that at 8Dr. Vines testified under Strauss, conscious, reality.” I feel was in Dr. defendant “was . . . but don’t she defense, prose to the response stated in called on behalf of both the cutor’s meaning he said that defendant was conscious: inquiry about his when awake, Well, legs, body, was func- say I’d that she was and her arms and “A. fashion, conscious, reasoning be tioning. Her after a so that she would brain was opposed to comatose. “Q. thinking, thinking; would that But the but she was distortion then be a fair statement? “A. Yes. conscious, “Q. you say And would she con- so if that were the definition of scious, is that correct? Medically, yes.”
“A. important 9It is psyсhosis note that defendant’s merely was not temporarily re lated to the which drugs. she was under the testimony influence of clear, Dr. Strauss made this rary psychosis hallucinogens when he insanity characterized tempo defendant’s as “A temporary brought insanity drug about an extended abuse with recovering estimate, very taking, and not quickly I would [-] until *6 Hospital, she was released from Patton a State of some nine or ten months.” Similarly, Lengyel Carl psychosis, although drug-in Dr. testified that defendant’s duced, drug. would continue even after she went off the Dr. Alfred Larson testified cells, that psychosis, organic which was due to an disturbance of the brain could anywhere years’ last from two weeks to two time. existing court pertinent part: 10The stated in “The state of mind at that time was unconsciousness, sense; certainly anot state of as has been defined here in a medical is, coma, incapable thаt the defendant in a or was not of locomotion manual action. doubt, say “While I have some I am that a not sure I can the doubt is reasonable one, think, acting taking whether the defendant was conscious of at that time. I rather round, the case all it would have to be said that she had a sufficient consciousness of acting, deranged respects, as as she was in other to hold that the defense of uncon- sciousness is not available to her. governing “Apparently, capable the is not whether was of test one her actions will, through strength person the of but whether the acted in some fashion conscious recess, both then their After a counsel for arguments parties presented the the of the case. At the conclusion of the arguments on sanity phase court found that while defendant was indeed both before psychotic attack, after the of that her act was and “was not understanding capable it “was not a settled and was no defense because of wrong,” insanity nature, and, addition, was the permanent voluntary produced inges- tion of the court found that defendant hallucinatory drugs.”11 Accordingly had, taking consciousness, although of the place. acts I the That think the defendant certainly controlling feed in of the capable was into mind not act. “I willing say persuades would be her consciousness to that the evidence me that during very was intermittent those bad hours on December I think that is I 7. true. any fully don’t think there is of what evidence that the defendant was aware she was kitchen, doing day, to that to from stem stem on that or in but she was shown intermittently requires. been the aware of her actions. And I think that is all law find, that, “I would have to in addition that the extent which defendant actions, intermittently product drug was not aware of her оf was the intoxication voluntarily induced.” following 11We set the pertinent portions forth of the court’s statement: “I think had, prior any ques the evidence shows defendant to have of the events in prior tion in this trial—and I at personality. least November of anti-social 1970—an quote understand that word to be the personality same as one with deficits close quote. LSD, voluntary ingestion including “Because drugs, of and mescaline and others, suffering began psychosis. defendant some time in November from a I say drugs mean to produced psychosis that the sense that without drugs left, here, she would have been for all we can determine simply as personality deficits. psychosis, “And there is evidence here that the characterized the doctors as schizophrenia, operating November, was on this defendant from some time in least through beyond December and the date of Deсember 7. “Certainly, out, acting she they had intervals of I think is the word that use to But, far, express some anti-social really, you conduct. And that is as could find. event, crime, 7th, psychosis in existed on the date December on both sides because of then, crime, and had while little the date such capable understanding a condition the mind that she was not that her act was wrong. reality And the record is to out touch with so full of references forth. say finding lay “And so I would that in the face of the that in she did terms 7th, doing quote know what she was held would have to find to be of a settled and ingestion close for on December nevertheless be she must criminally responsible day, psychosis, her acts on that because the which I 7th, schizophrenia characterized as on December was not nature, and, permanent addition, produced by hallucinatory drags. “Now, decision, legal that is and not a attеmpted decision medical because I have findings directly to make here from evidence this which meets what counsel have argued to me as their view of the issues I involved. And think the evidence has been after, that on suffering December and for some time before and she some this psychosis. *7 “I do not temporary psychosis, by testimony believe more than a when measured condition, time, beginning as to doctors from time to back in 1968 to the present, by testimony concerning and when measured the the duration of effects voluntary ingestion of LSD. stated, sane at the time offense was committed. As already legally the court of sentence and eventually suspended imposition granted pro- bation. (1)
Defendant contends that evidence before the court estab caused, lished a defense of unconsciousness and that however (2) insanity, was a (a), defense to section subdivision intent crime. general contention, In of her first that the evidence support argues showed her to be at the time of her actions. relies on the She psychotic court’s that there was no evidence she was aware of what findings fully she was on the of the assault but was shown to have been inter- doing day aware of mittently ante.) her actions. fn. that the (See only She urges determination to be made the trial court was whether she was in fact unconscious at the time of her acts and that the fact that such uncon- sciousness was the of intoxication induced should product drug voluntarily not the defense. negate Five,
Section subdivision those deemed designates among persons of crimes incapable who committing committed the act “[p]ersons charged without conscious thereof.” In being (1901) Methever 132 Cal. 481], P. this court observed the above sectiоn “con- mind, —as, cases of templates only of sound som- persons example, nambulists, or persons delirium from fever or suffering Never- drugs.” theless, as Witkin out it points may other for ex- applications—as, to a from a blow ample, person suffering a “black out” or to a causing (1 Witkin, in an fit. epileptic 138-140.) Cal. Crimes More recently pp. in Newton Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. “ the court ‘Unconsciousness,’ declared that as the term is used in the rule [i.e., cited just subd. need not reach the dimensions Five] physical commonly associated with (coma, inertia, the term loco- incapability action, motion or manual on); and so it can exist—and the above-stated rule can apply—where not, but subject acts fact is at physically time, conscious of acting. [Fn. omitted.]” things, although certainly, temporary “When those in terms measured it is spite time, so, elapsed temporary thing a less Mоuntain And than Red. 7th, doing wrong that she not on December did know that what she was fact despite condi- with, she not a mental that the reason did know was fact infliction schizophrenia, despite endured that condition had tion described as the fact thereafter, certainly prior to the back November and endured crime at least into probably the month hard the rest December and longer,—parenthetically, it is Patton, you things so don’t began dosing they up to tell with other because know—despite facts, that the law does not admit those I hold legal insanity, really defense schizophrenia charged by because the crime reason of of ingestion settled, nature, produced place permanent and was first drugs drugs. hallucinatory (Italics added.) . . other
573 are broad statements in the cases that unconsciousness is there While criminal v. (see, People a defense to a charge example, complete 749, 156, 820]), Wilson 66 Cal.2d 427 P.2d Cal.Rptr. [59 we have articulate the rule in of uncon taken the always light pains People sciousness Baker intoxication. In v. by voluntary produced 550, 42 Cal.2d we said: “Unconsciousness is a [268 Code, 26, criminal (Pen. not a defense to a complete, partial, charge § 5), and, subd. at times amount intoxication voluntary may although unconsciousness, intent, it can have the effect of yet only negating specific the code section section 22 and not subdivision 5. being applicable Conley (1966) We this formulation in repeated [Citations.]” 411 P.2d “Defendant offered Cal.Rptr. 911]: evidence of intoxication caused alcohol and defense his drugs support of unconsciousness. Unconsciousness is a defense to ordinarily complete Code, a criminal (Pen. Five.) subd. If state charge. of uncon intoxication, however, is caused sciousness it is not a by voluntary complete (See defense.” also v. Graham (1969) Cal.2d Thus, 153].) 455 P.2d clear, Cal.Rptr. the above cases make of section provisions 2212 cannot be circumvented as defend by urging, case, ant does in the instant that we should concern ourselves only whether the question defendant was in a state of unconsciousness and not as to whether inquire such state was voluntary product ingestion or drugs alcohol. Such is not the law of this state.13 sum, In unconsciousness caused by intoxication is voluntary only defense to a partial is, criminal charge—that serve to may negate intent or state specific Graham, of mind to the (People offense. requisite supra, 316; Baker, 71 Cal.2d at People v. p. supra, 42 Cal.2d follows, It therefore, that unconsciousness caused by voluntary intoxication is no defense to a general intent definition a crime in crime—by which no intent is specific Assault crime, with a required. is such a deadly weapon and we have held that intent therefor requisite general be may provides: 12Section 22 “No act by person committed in a while state.of intoxication is less having criminal reason of his been in such But condition. whenever any motive, the actual existence of particular purpose, or intent is nec essary element crime, particular species degree constitute jury may or take time, into consideration the fact that the accused was intoxicated at de termining motive, purpose, or intent with which he committed the act.” provides: 13CALJIC No. person being 4.30 “Where a commits an act without thereof, conscious though, such act is not criminal even if committed conscious, who was it would be a applies only crime. This law to cases rule of [H] mind, of the unconsciousnеss of persons persons sound such as somnambulists or suffering fever, from the epilepsy, involuntary delirium of a blow on the head or the taking drugs intoxicating liquor, and other cases in which there is no function ing of the conscious mind.” *9 574 Thus, if there was of intoxication.14 through
negated showing conclusion, evidence the trial court’s defendant’s substantial to support she because of must fail. that was not unconsciousness argument guilty round, case, the case all the trial court found that In instant “taking it would to be said that she had a sufficient consciousness of acting, that as as she was in to hold defense of other respects, deranged that she was unconsciousness was not available to her.” It found “inter- not, of her but that to the she was her aware actions” extent mittently condition was the induced.” voluntarily of intoxication drug “product These are substantial evidence—indeed are findings they supported not here as to their The сourt’s conclusion that to challenged sufficiency. the extent defendant was aware of her acts she not entitled to the was defense of unconsciousness and its conclusion that to the extent conjoined aware, she was not she was still entitled to it because such condition was by voluntary are accordance produced both With ingestion drugs, set forth above. that legal We conclude defendant was principles found properly guilty charged.
turnWe to defendant’s second contention which relates to the sanity her trial. She claims the court erred in phase her finding that, at the sane time of the legally offense on the basis she did although not know that what she was was doing insanity was wrong, drug- 11, induced and not (See settled and nature. fn. permanent ante.) caused, She argues however is a insanity, defense to criminal charge. It is fundamental system to our that a jurisprudence cannot be convicted for acts (People while insane. v. Nash performed (1959) 36, 416]; 52 Cal.2d Code, 26, 50-51 P.2d Pen. subd. [338 Three.) test, Insanity, under the California denotes a mental M’Naughton condition which renders a or person incapable knowing understanding act, the nature and of his quality incapable distinguishing right in relation to that wrong (People 795, act. (1964) 61 Cal.2d 801 Wolff 271, 959].) 394 P.2d This is Cal.Rptr. [40 a factual to be decided question (Id. trier of fact. at p.
In this case the trial court found that defendant “was not capable that her understanding act was can construe only We this wrong.” 14This (1969) 444, was reiterated People rule v. Hood 1 Cal.3d 452-459 [82 618, Cal.Rptr. 462 applied charge P.2d which the rule of assault with a deadly weapon upon 245, a police (§ (b)). applies officer It subd. also to the crime here, charged (People which defendant deadly weapon. assault with a (1971) 257]; Parks Cal.3d Cal.Rptr. 485 P.2d v. Rocha [95 372]; 3 Cal.3d Cal.Rptr. 896-900 v. Sеals 993].) Cal.Rptr. 462 P.2d test. was insane under the aforementioned to mean that defendant finding because this the trial sane court finding, adjudged legally Despite nature, and, addition, of a settled and “not permanent psychosis of* In so hallucinatory voluntary ingestion drugs.” produced *10 the trial court the rules the defense of ruling, misinterpreted regarding and committed error. insanity prejudicial stated,
As we have intoxication itself is no defense already voluntary (See to crime of intent such as assault with a fn. general deadly weapon. ante, 14, However, text.) and we have held that accompanying repeatedly intoxication, “when is the result insanity continued it affects long in the same way which has been responsibility insanity produced (People Griggs other 621, cause.” v. (1941) 17 Cal.2d 625 [110 (See italics added.) also People v. Hower 638, (1907) 151 Cal. People Findley 507]; 642-643 P. 301, (1901) [91 132 Cal. 307 [64 472]; People v. Fellows (1898) P. 830]; 122 Cal. 240 P. v. Travers (1891) 88 Cal. 239-240 P. See La Fave generally 88]. Scott, & Handbook 348; Annot., on Criminal Law at 8 p. 1236, 1265; Witkin, A.L.R.3d 127; Cal. Crimes (1963) at p. § Clark & Marshall 6.05, 374; on Crimes (1958) at Perkins on Criminal p. § Law (1957) 795; at p. Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure 46, at considerations this distinction in treatment between
Policy support intoxication voluntary in unconsciousness and intoxica- resulting tion which causes The former those situations in insanity. encompasses which mental does not extend of intoxica- beyond impairment Hood, cases, supra, tion. In such our at analysis Cal.3d intoxication, while in terms of is page phrased entirely alcoholic “A consideration is the effect of alcohol on human applicable: compelling behavior. A effect of alcohol is to distort and relax significant judgment Parker, the controls on (Beck and anti-social aggressive impulses. The Intoxicated Problem Responsibility (1966), 44 Can. Offender—A Medico-Legal 570-573; Aspects Alcohol Bar Rev. Muelberger, Intoxication (1956), 40-41.) Bar J. Alcohol Mich.State apparently behavior, has less effect on the to ability engage simple goal-directed words, although of that In other may behavior. impair efficiency drunk man is an do such intent to forming something simple, capable another, as strike unless he is has reached the stage so drunk he unconsciousness. he man of is is not as as a sober doing What capable exercising about the social of his acts or judgment controlling consequences his toward to act impulses rashly anti-social acts. He is more likely and to be It would therefore
impulsively susceptible passion anger. be anomalous to allow evidence intoxication to relieve man of respon- assault, for the crimes of with a sibility assault or deadly weapon simple which are so committed such a manner.” frеquently just however,
When
intoxication results in
long-continued
insanity,
mental
disorder
even after
effects
remains
alcohol have worn
drug
insane,”
off. The
actor
and the traditional
“legally
justifications
conform,
criminal
are
because of his
punishment
inapplicable
inability
not,
Scott,
intoxicated or
social
La
(See
behavior.
Fave &
accepted
op.
is,
supra,
course,
cit.
271-272.) He
subject
commitment
pp.
case,
in a mental institution. In the
court
instant
the trial
to have
appears
*11
confused these
rules.
rule of law was
separate
early
proper
Travers,
supra,
established in
v.
The trial court this carried distinction too for it that defendant’s required insanity permanent.15 both settled proof Such a violates the that rule as a defense requirement insanity “[t]emporary to crime is as fully (People law as is recognized by insanity.” permanent v. Ford 1075].) Thus, 138 Cal. P. if defendant 141-142 at the time of offense was insane under the California M’Naughton test, it makes no difference whether the lasted insanity several may 15This have rule attempting clearly distinguish been misunderstood since in between insanity, intoxication and previously we have in dicta de implied that Thus, Fellows, fendant must chronically supra, be permanently v. insane. 239-240, pp. therefore, Cal. at man, voluntarily this stated: “A sane who court drinks and ment, judg becomes intoxicated excused is not because the result is to cloud his faculties, reason, derange unbalance his his impair perceptions, his normal and lead him to the commission of an act which senses he would have in his sober hand, one, indulgence Upon long-continued avoided. other if reason of intoxicants, stage perma has reached chronic that alcoholism where the brain is diseased, nently distinguishing right incapable where the victim rendered from is case, then, permanent resulted, wrong, general insanity where has and. in such congenitally is legally responsible he insane, no his acts the man more would than be added.) (Italics injury from to the Later cases or insane violent brain.” Griggs, e.g., People permanent insanity. (See, not mentioned the nature supra, at p. case, (See People Donegan months, of hours. as in this or merely period 856].)16 Cal.App.2d we find reviеwed the record in the instant case and substantial We have the trial court’s that defendant evidence finding psychotic support at the time of the offense. This testimony finding amply supported Substantial evidence also that psychiatrists. supports finding was a the trial Finally, psychosis voluntary ingestion drugs. product court found that defendant “was not that her understanding capable act was considerable wrong,” finding testimony supported psychiatric that defendant could not at the time of distinguish right wrong her offense.17 out,
As already if defendant was insane time of the pointed offense, it is immaterial that her resulted insanity from repeated voluntary intoxication, as as her was of a settled long insanity nature. The trial “was, court made a that defendant’s compound finding not of a insanity nature”; settled and however, we have permanent out that insanity pointed need not be permanеnt order to establish a The trial defense. court also found that defendant suffered from a “temporary psychosis” “was on this November, operating from some time in at least December and through the date of December 7.” hold such beyond We *12 which was temporary not limited to psychosis intoxica- merely periods (see tion fn. ante) and which rendered defendant insane under the test constitutes a settled M’Naughton that is a defense insanity complete the to offense here charged.
The is reversed and the judgment cause is remanded to trial court with directions to enter a judgment reason guilty insanity and to take such further as are law.18 proceedings required J., McComb, J., Tobriner; J., Burke, J., C. Clark, J.,
Wright, concurred. course, 16Of the burden is on preponderance the defendant to establish during (See People the evidence that insanity. the offense occurred
Baker thеrein.) P.2d and cases cited 17We note that day in the instant took mescaline the case before insanity may offense. Defendant does not lose the defense of because she also have Scott, 348; (La op. supra, been intoxicated at p. the time cit. at of the offense. Fave & Marshall, op. supra, 6.09, Clark and cit. at finding 18Penal be that part: Code section 1026 states in “If the verdict or committed, defendant was it shall insane at time the offense was the court unless to appear fully sanity the court that the direct that defendant has recovered his shall insane, the defendant be hospital confined in the state or if there be for criminal no such hospital, hospital state then be confined in state for the that he some other MOSK, J. I concurin the of the court and the well-reasoned in judgment should, of the for its reliance a doctrine we analysis exсept upon opinion last, at disavow as in long outmoded either medical unsupportable science or law: ancient rule for determination of criminal responsibility. test, In four to refers the M’Naughton passages opinion approval in two them the rule as “the California test.” M’Naughton describing (Ante, 576, 577.) The also pp. terms opinion speaks distinguish from ing right at the trial to the witnesses wrong, questions expert were so framed. that California does not adhere to the traditional implication strictly test, first ten
M’Naughton
six score and
adopted
England
years ago,
is an accurate reflection of the current status of the law in this state.
(People
959].)
In declared, substance, 1843 the M’Naughton rule that a man was not a if he was unable subject hanging distinguish right proper In conduct.1 this meant that because delirious and wrong demented practice If, however, appear insane. it shall fully the court that the defendant has recovered sanity his custody such defendant shall be remanded to the of the sheriff until his sanity finally shall have been prescribed by determined in the manner law. . . .” The trial court in this psychotic case found that defendant was not the time judgment. However, rendered erroneously since it legally found that defendant was offense, sane at the time procedures of the it did not follow the above. There- outlined fore, on duty remand it bewill trial court decide whether “defendant has not *13 fully has sanity.” recovered fully If it determines that she recovered her [her] sanity, it should direct hospital prescribed by that she be confined as in state section (See (1972) 553, generally 1026. In re Cal.Rptr. Franklin 7 126 496 Cal.3d [101 If, 465].) hand, P.2d fully on other has the determines that defendant in fact re- sanity, sanity custody covered her it should remand until of the sheriff finally is prescribed by interpreted determined “in the manner latter law.” We have phrase encompass proceedings involuntary are now of civil commitment which governed by (Lanterman-Petris- seq. Welfare and Institutions 5000 et Code section Act). (In Slayback 769]; Within, (1930) 480, Short re 209 Cal. 484 P. see also [288 (1963) 514.) person Criminal p. procedures, § Cal. may Procedure Under these evaluation, dangerous up be detained to 72 and if is deemed hours for treatment, days or may refuses he be certified than 14 for more Code, 5250; involuntary (Welf. complete & intensive treatment. Inst. see the more Superior procedures (1970) discussion of Thorn these in v. Court 668- 56].) Cal.Rptr. 672 464 [83 P.2d an spelling 1“To what extent a lunatic’s even of his own name to be deemed book, authority?” asked and Other Justice Frankfurter in his Of Law and Life
579 by profiting punishment were of appreciating individuals incapable conviction, from removed, state, after the cases were inflicted by. rule soon after cast the M’Naughton Yet doubt was upon
criminal process. source an 1883 English from Sherry Professor quotes its promulgation. has been 1843 since year delivered judgment suggesting “every as in many ways to be described which deserves on an authority founded (1973) 21 Am.J. Law Criminal The Politics doubtful.” (Sherry, Reform written: “The has 211.) As Dr. Karl Menninger psychiatrists Comp.L. ‘decision,’ and some this did not (sufficiently) dispute of the day pontifical an since, It absurdity. its requires with it ever despite have gone along another individual whether say incalculable degree presumption . . . us could truly say when few of ‘knows’ wrong, right especially distinction, to get Trying is in this what оur own degree [f] expertise invited the ingenuity criteria has around the of the M’Naghten absurdity a century.” (Menninger, of many lawyers, judges, psychiatrists (1966) Crime of Punishment undertaken in New rule were
Efforts to
around”
“get
M’Naughton
(State
399, 429),
Pike,
N.H.
49
as 1870
ago
long
Hampshire
States,
Despite Wells-Gorshen this court has approach, persisted Things (1965) page 3. He M’Naughten: commented on the variorum of Daniel original 1. The Gaelic—Mhicneachdain. himself, signing 2. The defendant trial—M’Naughten. a letter at the 3. Trials—Macnaughton. The State Finnelly—M’Naghten. 4. Clark and Archbold—Macnaughton, 5. Macnaughten Macnaghten. or Stephen—Macnaughten 6. Macnaghten. or Halsbury—M’Naughton 7. M’Naughten. 8. 1930 Select Capital Punishment—McNaughten. Committee on Royal 9. 1949 Capital Punishment—M’Naghten. Commission on 2The Durham rule “is simply criminally an responsible accused is not if his unlawful act was product mental disease or mental defect.” The of Maine state *14 (Me. adopted (1964) has 15-104.) Durham. Rev. Stats. Annot. pp. 3The jury committing Currens test is: “The must be satisfied that at the time of prohibited defendant, the defect, act the as a result of mental disease or lacked sub capacity stantial to requirements conform his conduct to the the he law which alleged case, Diamond, is to have analysis violated.” For a critical of the From see M’Naughton Beyond (1962) Currens and 50 Cal.L.Rev. 189.
580 Henderson service to in While paying lip M’Naughton. v. 677], Justice
60 Cal.2d P.2d Traynor Cal.Rptr. [35 conceded the Wells-Gorshen effect are ameliorate frankly “purpose the law criminal M’Naughton governing prescribed by responsibility rule,” the this court in follоwing year Wolff once again, P.2d reaffirmed M’Naughton Cal.Rptr. “ (at 803) that it has become ‘an of the legislative declaring integral part scheme for of criminal in California appraisal responsibility ” Indeed, therein said the change should come from Legislature.’ court, “the entire is under consideration currently by problem Wolff before the languishes decade later the still body.” Nearly problem now revision of the which has it a Legislature, presented proposed entire Penal Code. It that, is thesis my to the contrary concession in that M’Naughton Wolff
is a part “legislative (People .scheme” Ryan (1965) 140 Cal. 412, 425 App.2d 496]), the ancient test has been solely judicial product therefore in deference may, to advances in medical and legal science, be Indeed, judicially changed. none of the statutory provisions relating criminal followed the responsibility рrecisely M’Naughton (See, rule. Code, §26, Three; Pen. e.g., Code, subd. Pen. 1016, subd. § 6; Code, Pen. 1367.) Nor § does Penal Code now being proposed considered Legislature speak (see terms M’Naughton - Code). proposed Penal Yet we continue to that we abide proclaim fact, M’Naughton, despite declared Dr. Roche in Phillip The Criminal Mind (1958) that we “have reached a page place where there is a consensus that the test of M’Naghten responsibility the defense of is no insanity Frankfurter, useful.” Justice longer testifying before the Commission Royal on Punishment Capital (1953), said the rules “are in measure large abandoned in and therefore practice I think the rules M’Naghten are in measure shams. large word, That a strong but I think the M’Naghten rules are difficult for conscientious . . . .” people
I believe it is time that this court forthrightly jettison M’Naughton rule and follow the lead of the several statеs that now adhere to the rule included in the Model Penal Code of the American Law Institute. The least we can do is to take a modest that will be until such step operative time as the Legislature acts of a finally new upon adoption penal code and prescribes therein for criminal statutory respon requirements We should sibility. continue, not out of ennui in the words of apathy Cardozo, Justice to “mock ourselves with a definition that palters (Cardozo, reality” and Literature or adhere to a 107), Law (1931) p. *15 Baldi (United States v. has almost no test “which recognizable reality” 540, 568). (3d 1951) Cir. 192 F.2d drafting a test is a of of criminal
Articulating responsibility problem a discriminate formula in such a as to enable the way judicial process necessary, those cases is between where a punitive-correctional disposition will the needs in which a satisfy those medical-custodial disposition elusive, an has of While result society. universally accepted proved definition of reach. test of criminal is not out Any operational responsibility retain irrationality should be on the of man and rationality premised Second, harmonize law criterion it should minimum of insanity. science, contribute thus enabling modern medical psychiatrist of moral and abstractions. administration justice legal unhampered Third, a jury the test should in a manner understood readily be stated Fourth, all criminal test should relieve from responsibility laymen. not be law would those with of the whom purposes penal respect certain same time making traditional while at the satisfied by imprisonment is actions not undermined. accountability of other for their persons and the Law (Lindman and Disabled McIntyre, Mentally distinguished in 1923 The American Law Institute organized scholars as judges, lawyers, legal permanent orgаnization group devised the law. It has devoted to clarification and improvement evidence, and Uniform in the fields of criminal its procedure, formulations one state United Code has been in all but Commercial adopted Its in 1962 and States. Model Penal Code finally subsequent completed it (e.g., a number of all substantial thereto states or adopted parts (1965), (1961), (1963), York (1963), Illinois Minnesota New Mexico New (1965)). Pennsylvania disease describes
Section 4.01 the ALI Model Penal Code “mental “(1) or in the terms: A following defect excluding responsibility” as a if of such conduct criminal conduct at the time responsible either to result of mental defect he disease or lacks substantial capacity his conduct or to conform criminality [wrongfulness] appreciate Article, the his conduct to the of law. As used this requirements [¶] disease an manifested ‘mental defect’ do not include аbnormality terms ' conduct.” criminal or otherwise anti-social only by repeated com- test, this In the observers opinion thoughtful proposed most formulation, over known as ALI is a significant monly improvement *16 582 “know,” It substitutes
M’Naughton.4 thereby indicating “appreciate” that an offender must be as well as aware of emotionally intellectually of his significance conduct. The test also uses the word “conform” instead of “control” which avoids reference to such terms skillfully as “irresistible which have been as difficult of as the impulse” explanation M’Naughton test itself.
The ALI formulation has been in six states adopted substantially (Illinois, Vermont, Missouri, Massachusetts, Wisconsin) and Maryland, most Indeed, federal courts. “No other circuit the First continues except Circuit, on ancient rely rules” observed the Ninth M’Naghten sitting en banc 64, 65, in Wade v. United (9th 1970) States Cir. 426 F.2d in substance the ALI test.5 California has with various adopting temporized devices, its notable contribution Wells-Gorshen and their through progeny being of diminished I concede the merit in the concept capacity. diminished its capacity theory, problems despite frequently perplexing I but cannot application, in the charade of continuing deeming acquiesce to be a sacred M’Naughton cow.
The majority in this case would have become notable if truly opinion it served as California, the last rites for the rule in invited M’Naughton Legislature substitute therefor whenever considers adopt penal revision, code trial courts in interim to adhere to directed the' ALI formula. just 4To mention a sampling: Fingaxette, Meaning The Insanity of Criminal (1972) ff.; page Wechsler, 242 Codification of Criminal Law in the United States (1968) ff.; page Goldstein, 24 ff.; Insanity The page Defense Lindman & McIntyre, Mentally Law, supra, Disabled and page contrary For a ff.
view,
see
J.,
State v. Lucas
(Weintraub,