Insanity Defence In Homicide Trials
1. Concept and Legal Framework
The insanity defense allows a defendant to claim that, at the time of committing a criminal act (like homicide), they were legally incapable of understanding the nature or wrongfulness of their act due to a mental disorder.
The key legal principles:
M’Naghten Rule (UK and common law countries)
Defendant must prove that at the time of the act:
They did not understand what they were doing, or
They did not know it was wrong.
Applied in U.K., U.S. (most states), and other common law jurisdictions.
Irresistible Impulse Test
In some U.S. states, even if a defendant knew the act was wrong, they could claim a mental disorder prevented them from controlling their behavior.
Durham Rule (U.S., limited use)
Crime is the product of mental disease or defect.
Broader than M’Naghten but less commonly applied.
GBH / Homicide Distinction
Insanity does not excuse acts of recklessness or negligence.
In homicide cases, it often leads to special verdicts like “not guilty by reason of insanity” and commitment to psychiatric care rather than prison.
Key Cases (Detailed Analysis)
A. UNITED KINGDOM
1. R v. M’Naghten (1843)
Facts: Daniel M’Naghten killed the secretary of the British Prime Minister while suffering from delusions that the government was persecuting him.
Holding:
Established the M’Naghten Rules:
Presumption of sanity until proven otherwise.
Defendant must have a defect of reason from disease of mind.
They must not know the nature/quality of the act or that it was wrong.
Importance:
Forms the basis for insanity defense in the U.K. and most common law countries.
Special verdict: “Not guilty by reason of insanity.”
2. R v. Sullivan (1984)
Facts: Defendant attacked a friend during an epileptic seizure, causing serious injury.
Holding:
Court held temporary mental incapacity due to a disease of the mind could count for the insanity defense, even if caused by an organic condition like epilepsy.
Importance:
Expands insanity beyond psychiatric illness to conditions that impair reasoning, not necessarily permanent or psychiatric.
3. R v. Kemp (1957)
Facts: Kemp, who had arteriosclerosis, attacked his wife during a rage episode caused by his illness affecting the brain.
Holding:
Insanity defense was applicable because the condition affected the mind’s ability to reason, even though the physical disease was cardiovascular.
Importance:
Clarified that insanity depends on the effect on reasoning, not the source of the disease (mental vs. physical origin).
B. UNITED STATES
4. John Hinckley Jr. Case (U.S., 1982)
Facts: Attempted to assassinate President Reagan; defense argued Hinckley was suffering from severe psychosis and obsessive disorder.
Holding:
Jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity.
Resulted in widespread criticism of U.S. insanity defense laws.
Importance:
Led to stricter standards: many states adopted the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984:
Defendant must prove severe mental illness preventing knowledge of wrongfulness.
Burden shifted to the defendant in federal cases.
5. Durham v. United States (1954)
Facts: Durham committed crimes while allegedly suffering from mental illness; defense argued that crime was “product” of mental disease.
Holding:
Created the Durham Rule: a defendant is not criminally responsible if the unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect.
Importance:
Broader than M’Naghten; allowed mental illness to excuse behavior even if defendant knew it was legally wrong.
Eventually abandoned in many states for being too expansive and difficult to apply.
6. Frendak v. United States (1979)
Facts: Frendak refused an insanity defense despite evidence she was mentally ill.
Holding:
Court held that defendants have the right to refuse an insanity defense, even if attorneys believe it is in their best interest.
Importance:
Highlights autonomy of the defendant in using the defense.
7. Clark v. Arizona (2006)
Facts: Defendant claimed he was mentally impaired and could not understand right from wrong when he killed his ex-girlfriend.
Holding:
Court allowed states to limit insanity defenses, ruling Arizona could restrict defenses to cognitive incapacity (knowledge of right/wrong), not including impulse control.
Importance:
Emphasizes that insanity defense rules vary by jurisdiction and can be narrowly defined.
C. CANADA
8. R v. Swain (1991)
Facts: Swain was charged with murder but argued he was insane at the time.
Holding:
Supreme Court of Canada reformed insanity laws:
Introduced automatic review boards for defendants found insane.
Clarified procedural rights and commitment procedures.
Importance:
Ensured due process for mentally ill offenders in homicide cases, balancing public safety and individual rights.
9. R v. Parks (1992)
Facts: Kenneth Parks drove to his in-laws’ house while sleepwalking and killed his mother-in-law.
Holding:
Court found him not criminally responsible by reason of automatism, which is related to insanity but distinct: he had no voluntary control.
Importance:
Distinguishes insanity (mental disease) from automatism (unconscious, involuntary acts).
In homicide, this distinction is critical for liability.
Key Principles from Cases
M’Naghten Rule dominates common law – Focus on knowledge of act and wrongfulness.
Cognitive vs. volitional impairment – Some jurisdictions allow irresistible impulse, others do not.
Burden of proof – Often on the defense, but varies by country.
Special verdicts – Typically “not guilty by reason of insanity,” with psychiatric commitment instead of prison.
Evolution over time – U.S. and Canada have reformed laws to balance defendant rights and public safety.
Automatism vs. insanity – Voluntary vs. involuntary acts must be distinguished.
RELATED Blog
comments