People v. Drew
California Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
TOBRINER, J.
For over a century California has followed the M’Naghten1 test2 to define the defenses of insanity and idiocy. The deficiencies of that test have long been apparent, and judicial attempts to reinterpret or evade the limitations of M’Naghten have proven inadequate. We shall explain why we have concluded that we should discard the M’Naghten language, and update the California test of mental incapacity as a criminal defense by adopting the test proposed by the American Law Institute3 and followed by the federal judiciary and the courts of 15 states. _
*337Understandably, in view of…
2Cases cited57 opinions
- Mullaney v. WilburSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Morissette v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Patterson v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co.California Supreme Court · 1975
- Davis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by150 opinions
- People v. KellyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- People v. FieldsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1983
- People v. MorrisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
- People v. LedesmaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2006
- People v. BerrymanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
145 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.