People v. Drew

Supreme Court of California
583 P.2d 1318, 22 Cal. 3d 333 (1978)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of the conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, they lack substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the requirements of law.

Facts:

Joseph Drew was drinking in a Brawley bar when he noticed $5 he had left on the bar was missing.
Drew accused another customer, Truman Sylling, of taking the money, which led to a heated argument.
Police officers, including Officer Bonsell, were called to the scene.
As officers attempted to escort Drew outside, he broke free and struck Officer Bonsell in the face, causing him to fall.
Drew then fell on top of the officer and attempted to bite him before being subdued.
Drew had a history of mental illness, having previously been committed to a state hospital, and was diagnosed with latent schizophrenia.
Two court-appointed psychiatrists testified that Drew's condition included repeated assaultive behavior and that his symptoms would be aggravated by alcohol consumption.
Both psychiatrists concluded that at the time of the incident, Drew did not understand that his assault upon the officer was wrong.

Procedural Posture:

Joseph Drew was charged in a California trial court with battery on a peace officer, obstructing an officer, and disturbing the peace.
Drew entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity.
Following the guilt phase of the trial, a jury found Drew guilty of all charges.
A sanity trial was then held, and the jury, instructed on the M'Naghten rule, found Drew to be legally sane.
The trial court entered a judgment of conviction and sentenced Drew to prison.
Drew appealed the judgment of conviction, and the California Supreme Court granted a hearing.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Should the judicially created M’Naghten test for legal insanity, which focuses solely on a defendant's cognitive ability to know right from wrong, be discarded in favor of the American Law Institute (ALI) test, which also includes a volitional component?

Opinions:

Majority - Tobriner, J.

Yes. The M’Naghten test is discarded and replaced with the American Law Institute (ALI) test for legal insanity. The M’Naghten rule, which focuses exclusively on a defendant's cognitive capacity to know the nature and wrongfulness of an act, is based on outdated psychological principles. It improperly ignores the volitional aspect of mental illness, where a person may know an act is wrong but be unable to control their conduct. Previous judicial modifications, such as the diminished capacity doctrine, have proven to be inadequate remedies for M'Naghten's fundamental flaws. The ALI test is superior because it incorporates both cognitive and volitional elements, allows for degrees of incapacity with its 'substantial capacity' standard, and permits a fuller range of psychiatric testimony. As the M'Naghten rule was a judicially created doctrine, the court has the responsibility and authority to update it to align with modern legal and psychological understanding, notwithstanding legislative inaction.

Concurring - Mosk, J.

Yes. The court should abandon the M'Naghten rule and direct trial courts to use the ALI formula as an interim standard until the Legislature acts to revise the Penal Code.

Dissenting - Richardson, J.

No. A major change to the test for legal insanity should be made by the Legislature, not the judiciary. For over a century, this court has consistently deferred to the Legislature on this issue, recognizing that the legislative branch is better equipped for the necessary fact-finding to formulate a new standard. The Legislature is actively considering this very issue, making the majority's judicial intervention inappropriate. Furthermore, the ALI test is not without its own flaws and critics, containing vague terms like 'mental disease or defect' and 'substantial capacity' and posing difficulty in distinguishing an irresistible impulse from one that was simply not resisted.

Dissenting - Clark, J.

No. The majority's opinion shatters California’s established system of criminal responsibility and replaces it with a vague behavioral test. This change is not mandated by the Constitution or the Legislature, nor was it requested by the parties. The court is overstepping its bounds, and the legislative response should be swift in restoring the state's prior established system of mental defenses.

Analysis:

This decision marked a landmark shift in California's criminal law, aligning the state with the federal courts and a growing number of jurisdictions by adopting the more modern and psychologically nuanced ALI test for insanity. By incorporating a volitional component (the ability to conform conduct), the ruling broadened the scope of the insanity defense beyond M'Naghten's narrow cognitive focus. This change significantly altered the nature of psychiatric testimony in insanity trials, allowing for a more complete presentation of a defendant's mental state. The case also stands as a strong assertion of judicial power to evolve common law doctrines, even those of long standing, in the absence of legislative action.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: People v. Drew (1978)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature