La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 14:14 (2026)

Insanity

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§14.  Insanity

If the circumstances indicate that because of a mental disease or mental defect the offender was incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong with reference to the conduct in question, the offender shall be exempt from criminal responsibility.  

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 208 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1943–2026 · leading case: Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992). · cites it 10× “Here, Louisiana has by reason of his acquittal exempted Foucha from criminal responsibility as La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:14 (West 1986) requires.”
State v. Holmes, 5 So. 3d 42 (La. 2008). · cites it 4× “Code Crim. Proc. art. 651 provides in part: "When a defendant is tried upon a plea of `not guilty,' evidence of insanity or mental defect at the time of the offense shall not be admissible.”
State v. Andrews, 369 So. 2d 1049 (La. 1979). · cites it 8× “" R.S. 14:14. See, State v. Plaisance, 252 La.”
State of Louisiana v. Robert Leroy McCoy, 218 So. 3d 535 (La. 2016). · cites it 4× “Under La.Rev.Stat. § 14:14, Louisiana’s codification of the M’Naughten Rule, an offender is exempt from criminal responsibility only if he is incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong with reference to the conduct in question.”
Kimberly & Todd Thibodeaux, Individually & on Behalf of Their Minor Child, Gabrielle Thibodeaux v. James F. Donnell, M.D., 219 So. 3d 274 (La. 2017). · cites it 4× “§ 14:14 (2d ed.) (Nov. 2015) (“The ‘much discretion’ rule does not apply if there was error in the trial court which interdicted the damage-determining process.”
State v. Lecompte, 371 So. 2d 239 (La. 1979). · cites it 5× “See also LSA-R.S. 14:14; LSA-C.Cr.P. Art. 651, Official Revision Comment (a); State v.”
State v. Nealy, 450 So. 2d 634 (La. 1984). · cites it 3× “If the circumstances indicate that because of a mental disease or mental defect the offender was incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with reference to the conduct in question, the offender shall be exempt from criminal responsibility.”
State v. Abercrombie, 375 So. 2d 1170 (La. 1979). · cites it 4× “R.S. 14:14. In support of the state's case against legal insanity, the defendant was not shown to have known the difference between right and wrong when he committed these other crimes (in fact, the indication is that his behavior was irrational)— that he committed these other…”
State v. English, 367 So. 2d 815 (La. 1979). · cites it 3× “R.S. 14:14, providing this to be the test of insanity for exemption from criminal responsibility for the act, i.”
State v. Howard, 751 So. 2d 783 (La. 1999). · cites it 2× “R.S. 14:14—, it is obvious to us that the legislature intended to permit the jury to take into consideration, in deciding not to impose the death penalty, an abnormal mental condition short of legal insanity.”
Gathen v. Gathen, 66 So. 3d 1 (La. 2011). · cites it 2× “Maraist, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise: Civil Procedure, Volume I, § 14:14, p. 558 (2nd ed.2008). Relocation cases, like other cases involving determinations of the best interest of the child, are such cases where the trial court is vested with a high degree of discretion and, as…”
State v. Berry, 324 So. 2d 822 (La. 1975). · cites it 4× “R.S. 14:14 and La.C.Cr.P. art. 652, the trial court instructed the jury that the defendant had the burden of proving his insanity and that an individual is not relieved of responsibility for his acts unless he is determined to be incapable of distinguishing between right and…”
Show all 208 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.