People v. Skinner
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GRODIN, J.
For over a century prior to the decision in People v. Drew (1978) 22 Cal.3d 333 [149 Cal.Rptr. 275, 583 P.2d 1318], California courts framed this state’s definition of insanity, as a defense in criminal cases, upon the two-pronged test adopted by the House of Lords in M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 10 Clark & Fin. 200, 210 [8 Eng. Rep. 718, 722]: “[T]o establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature…
2Cases cited60 opinions
- Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Robinson v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- United States v. BaileySupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Leland v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- United States v. DotterweichSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
55 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by114 opinions
- People v. KellyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- People v. DavenportCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- People v. LedesmaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- People v. WilliamsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- People v. LawleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2002
109 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.