Section 3450 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act or of
distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.” (Pen.
Code, § 25(b); People v. Skinner (1985) 39 Cal.3d 765, 768 [217 Cal.Rptr. 685, 704
P.2d 752].) In contrast, the standard for recommitment under Penal Code section
1026.5, subdivision (b), is whether a defendant, “by reason of a mental disease,
defect, or disorder represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others.”
(People v. Superior Court, supra, 233 Cal.App.3d at pp. 489–490; People v. Wilder
(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 90, 99 [39 Cal.Rptr.2d 247].)
Legal and Moral Wrong
The wrong contemplated by the two-part insanity test refers to both the legal wrong
and the moral wrong. If the defendant appreciates that his or her act is criminal but
does not think it is morally wrong, he or she may still be criminally insane. (See
People v. Skinner (1985) 39 Cal.3d 765, 777–784 [217 Cal.Rptr. 685]; see also
People v. Stress (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271–1274 [252 Cal.Rptr. 913].)
Temporary Insanity
The defendant’s insanity does not need to be permanent in order to establish a
defense. The relevant inquiry is the defendant’s mental state at the time the offense
was committed. (People v. Kelly (1973) 10 Cal.3d 565, 577 [111 Cal.Rptr. 171, 516
P.2d 875].)
SECONDARY SOURCES
1 Witkin & Epstein, California Criminal Law (4th ed. 2012) Defenses, §§ 9–16,
18–20.
3 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 73,
Defenses and Justifications, § 73.02 (Matthew Bender).
4 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 86, Insanity
Trial, §§ 86.01A, 86.04 (Matthew Bender).
6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 124,
Jurisdiction and Disposition Hearings, § 124.04 (Matthew Bender).
CALCRIM No. 3450
DEFENSES AND INSANITY
1026