insanity test even more restrictive than the M'Naghten
Under Florida's M'Naghten
Rule, "an accused is not criminally responsible if, at the time of the alleged crime, [he] was, by reason of mental infirmity, disease, or defect unable to understand the nature and quality of his actor its consequences or was incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.
Rule, Model Penal Code, Irresistible Impulse Rule, Durham Rule, and Deific Decree Exception) (2)
162) The most common test for the insanity defense, the M'Naghten
rule, provides that the defendant will be excused from committing a crime if as a result of a mental disease or defect, the defendant did not know the nature or quality of the act or did not know the act was wrong.
129) The historic M'Naghten
test of insanity exculpated a defendant suffering from a "defect of reason, from a disease of the mind," if he did not know the nature and quality of his actions or, even if he did, did not know that they were wrong.
The pivotal case in defining legal insanity was the M'Naghten
case of 1843.
While Congress otherwise chose to adopt the [M'Naghten
rule], in this word choice, Congress adopted the language of the Model Penal Code rather than the M'Naghten
rule ("appreciate" vs.
After Parliament's heated debate over the proposed legislation and its passage, Daniel M'Naghten
made an attempt to kill Peel, fatally shooting his secretary by mistake.
rule, which acknowledged that defendants could not be
Historically, the mens rea of most crimes, particularly specific intent crimes, incorporates some element of wrongfulness as that term is used in Lewis and M'Naghten
wrong, as the typical M'Naghten
standard for insanity requires.
79) R v M'Naghten
(1843) 10 CL & F 200; R v Porter (1933)