What is required to prove not guilty by reason of insanity? Ask the Lawyer
Q: Someone kills a loved one. The proof is clear that he did it. The defense lawyer, however, argues he is not guilty by reason of insanity. What does that actually mean and how can it even be proved?
R.M., Woodland Hills
A: California Penal Code Section 25(b) requires the defendant to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence (which means “more likely than not”), that at the time of the offense, he could not understand the quality or nature of his act or distinguish right from wrong. None of the following is going to be sufficient: It was an irresistible impulse so he just could not help himself; mental disturbance; antisocial behavior or personality; voluntary intoxication; or even very poor judgment.
The standard of proof in California is deemed quite formidable. It comes into focus if the defendant is found guilty, at which point the jury then decides if at the time of the crime, he did not comprehend what he was doing or did not know it was wrong. If an expert is called as part of the defense, it will not suffice to state he was psychotic or schizophrenic. The mental incapacity must be connected to the legal criteria indicated, which is that he did not understand his actions or did not know it was wrongful.
Q: If a defendant in a criminal case is found not guilty by reason of insanity, then what? Does he go to prison? He isn’t released from custody, is he?
B.C., Long Beach
A: He is not released. Instead, commitment to a state hospital is likely. This can be for as long or even longer than the prison term. There will be annual reviews, and if there is any possibility of release, it will require court approval and medical clearance.
CALCRIM
This is the abbreviation for jury instructions given in criminal cases in California. The two instructions on point with regard to whether a defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity are Calcrim numbers 3450 and 3455. They are consistent with the information provided above, are accessible online (type “CalCrim 3450”), and may be of interest for you to read first hand what must be proven.
Ron Sokol has been a practicing attorney for more than 40 years, and has also served many times as a judge pro tem, mediator, and arbitrator. It is important to keep in mind that this column presents a summary of the law, and is not to be treated or considered legal advice, let alone a substitute for actual consultation with a qualified professional. To reach Sokol, email him at ronsesq@gmail.com.