M'Naghten rule in Oklahoma

2000The Petitioner offered some evidence at trial tending to show that he may have suffered from some form of mental illness or emotional distress around the time of the crimes, but none of the Petitioner's evidence shows that he did not know the nature and consequences of his acts or that he was unable to distinguish between right and wrong. [footnote omitted] To the contrary, there is a wealth of evidence to show both premeditation and planning on the part of the Petitioner. 12 QUESTION ANSWERED: Utilizing the facts submitted by Judge Russell, we find the giving of the instruction defining the M

2000The Petitioner offered some evidence at trial tending to show that he may have suffered from some form of mental illness or emotional distress around the time of the crimes, but none of the Petitioner's evidence shows that he did not know the nature and consequences of his acts or that he was unable to distinguish between right and wrong. [footnote omitted] To the contrary, there is a wealth of evidence to show both premeditation and planning on the part of the Petitioner. 12 QUESTION ANSWERED: Utilizing the facts submitted by Judge Russell, we find the giving of the instruction defining the M

1986Richardson v. State, 569 P.2d 1018 (Okl.Cr.1977).

1986Richardson v. State, 569 P.2d 1018 (Okl.Cr.1977).

2000The decision in Johnson clearly could have been formulated prior to Ellis' direct appeal as our decision in Pugh v. State, 1989 OK CR 70 , 781 P.2d 8483 , was settled law and Pugh reaffirmed this Court's recognition of both prongs of M'Naghten test. 18 THEREFORE, having considered the question presented and the statement of facts relevant to the certified question, we find that if a trial court gave the jury instruction defining insanity in the "conjunctive" rather than the "disjunctive" and this issue were raised on direct appeal and we were to decide the issue on the merits, the error would

2000The Supreme Court subsequently denied certiorari in Ellis v. Oklahoma, 513 U.S. 863 , 115 S.Ct. 178 , 180 L.Ed.2d 118 (1994).

2000The Supreme Court subsequently denied certiorari in Ellis v. Oklahoma, 513 U.S. 863 , 115 S.Ct. 178 , 180 L.Ed.2d 118 (1994).

2000The Supreme Court subsequently denied certiorari in Ellis v. Oklahoma, 513 U.S. 863 , 115 S.Ct. 178 , 180 L.Ed.2d 118 (1994).

2000The Supreme Court subsequently denied certiorari in Ellis v. Oklahoma, 513 U.S. 863 , 115 S.Ct. 178 , 180 L.Ed.2d 118 (1994).

1989Unlike State v. Patterson, 740 P.2d 944 (Alaska 1987), wherein the Alaska legislature specifically enacted legislation omitting one prong of the M'Naghten test, thereby disapproving the judicial interpretation of the statutory insanity defense, the Oklahoma legislature has never indicated that our judicial interpretation is inconsistent with the intent of Section 152.

1989Unlike State v. Patterson, 740 P.2d 944 (Alaska 1987), wherein the Alaska legislature specifically enacted legislation omitting one prong of the M'Naghten test, thereby disapproving the judicial interpretation of the statutory insanity defense, the Oklahoma legislature has never indicated that our judicial interpretation is inconsistent with the intent of Section 152.

1983Munn v. State, 658 P.2d 482 (Okl.Cr.1983).

1983Munn v. State, 658 P.2d 482 (Okl.Cr.1983).

1982The instructions are in accord with this Court’s decisions in Revard v. State, 332 P.2d 967 (Okl.Cr.1958), and Dare v. State, 378 P.2d 339 (Okl.Cr. 1963), wherein this Court approved similar instructions as appropriate and proper in cases of criminal responsibility on pleas of insanity.

1982The instructions are in accord with this Court’s decisions in Revard v. State, 332 P.2d 967 (Okl.Cr.1958), and Dare v. State, 378 P.2d 339 (Okl.Cr. 1963), wherein this Court approved similar instructions as appropriate and proper in cases of criminal responsibility on pleas of insanity.

1982In Leland, supra, the U. S. Supreme Court in addressing Oregon’s use of the M’Naghten rule stated “its procedure does not run foul of the Fourteenth Amendment because another method may seem to our thinking to be fairer or wiser ...” The Leland Court further observed that “[t]he science of psychiatry has made tremendous strides since that test was laid down in M’Naghten’s Case, but the progress of sci *1259 ence has not reached a point where its learning would compel us to require the state to eliminate the right and wrong test ...” supra 343 U.S. at 800-801 , 72 S.Ct. at 1008 .

1982In Leland, supra, the U. S. Supreme Court in addressing Oregon’s use of the M’Naghten rule stated “its procedure does not run foul of the Fourteenth Amendment because another method may seem to our thinking to be fairer or wiser ...” The Leland Court further observed that “[t]he science of psychiatry has made tremendous strides since that test was laid down in M’Naghten’s Case, but the progress of sci *1259 ence has not reached a point where its learning would compel us to require the state to eliminate the right and wrong test ...” supra 343 U.S. at 800-801 , 72 S.Ct. at 1008 .

1982Oklahoma follows the M’Naghten test of legal insanity. 21 O.S. 1981 , § 152; Garrett v. State, 586 P.2d 754 (Okl.Cr.1978).

1982Oklahoma follows the M’Naghten test of legal insanity. 21 O.S. 1981 , § 152; Garrett v. State, 586 P.2d 754 (Okl.Cr.1978).

1982The instructions are in accord with this Court’s decisions in Revard v. State, 332 P.2d 967 (Okl.Cr.1958), and Dare v. State, 378 P.2d 339 (Okl.Cr. 1963), wherein this Court approved similar instructions as appropriate and proper in cases of criminal responsibility on pleas of insanity.

1982The instructions are in accord with this Court’s decisions in Revard v. State, 332 P.2d 967 (Okl.Cr.1958), and Dare v. State, 378 P.2d 339 (Okl.Cr. 1963), wherein this Court approved similar instructions as appropriate and proper in cases of criminal responsibility on pleas of insanity.

1973Kobyluk v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 73 , 231 P.2d 388 (1951), Gonzales v. State, Okl.Cr., 388 P.2d 312 (1964).

1973Kobyluk v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 73 , 231 P.2d 388 (1951), Gonzales v. State, Okl.Cr., 388 P.2d 312 (1964).

1973Kobyluk v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 73 , 231 P.2d 388 (1951), Gonzales v. State, Okl.Cr., 388 P.2d 312 (1964).

1963The most recent case in which the M’Naghten test was retained is Doggett v. State, Okl.Cr., 371 P.2d 523 . 5 .

1963The most recent case in which the M’Naghten test was retained is Doggett v. State, Okl.Cr., 371 P.2d 523 . 5 .

1963The Durham Test (commonly referred to as the “product Rule”) was subsequently enlarged by the District of Columbia in United States v. Currens (3 Cir., 290 F.2d 751 ) and favorable comment may be found in Carter v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 227 , 252 F.2d 608 .

1963The Durham Test (commonly referred to as the “product Rule”) was subsequently enlarged by the District of Columbia in United States v. Currens (3 Cir., 290 F.2d 751 ) and favorable comment may be found in Carter v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 227 , 252 F.2d 608 .

1963The Durham Test (commonly referred to as the “product Rule”) was subsequently enlarged by the District of Columbia in United States v. Currens (3 Cir., 290 F.2d 751 ) and favorable comment may be found in Carter v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 227 , 252 F.2d 608 .

1963The Durham Test (commonly referred to as the “product Rule”) was subsequently enlarged by the District of Columbia in United States v. Currens (3 Cir., 290 F.2d 751 ) and favorable comment may be found in Carter v. United States, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 227 , 252 F.2d 608 .