Fare v. Ramon M.
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
TOBRINER, J.
Penal Code section 26 codifies the rarely used defense of idiocy as well as the better known defense of insanity. The California courts until recently have employed the same standard, the M’Naghten test,1 to govern both defenses. In People v. Drew (1978) ante page 333 [149 Cal.Rptr. 275, 583 P.2d 1318], however, this court repudiated the M’Naghten test of insanity and adopted instead the American Law Institute (ALI) formulation: “A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Pate v. RobinsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Durham v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1954
- United States v. Archie W. BrawnerCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1972
- People v. GorshenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1959
- Ernest McDonald v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1962
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by32 opinions
- Penry v. LynaughSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- In Re HarrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
- People v. RobertsonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
- People v. KrebsCalifornia Supreme Court · 2019
- In Re HawthorneCalifornia Supreme Court · 2005
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.