Section 3455 | CALCRIM (Jury Instructions)

•
Burden of Proof. In re Ramon M. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 419, 427, fn. 10 [149
Cal.Rptr. 387, 584 P.2d 524].).
•
Same Test for Both Mental Incapacity and Insanity. In re Ramon M. (1978) 22
Cal.3d 419, 427 [149 Cal.Rptr. 387, 584 P.2d 524].).
•
Requirement of Mental Disease or Defect. People v. McCaslin (1986) 178
Cal.App.3d 1, 8 [223 Cal.Rptr. 587].
•
Incapacity Based on Mental Disease or Defect. People v. Stress (1988) 205
Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271 [252 Cal.Rptr. 913].
•
Penal Code Section 25(b) Supersedes Model Penal Code Test. People v. Phillips
(2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 170, 173 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 448].
COMMENTARY
In In re Ramon M. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 419, 427 [149 Cal.Rptr. 387, 584 P.2d 524],
the Supreme Court held that the same test should apply for determining both mental
incapacity and insanity. However, the court was applying the Model Penal Code test,
which was subsequently superseded by Proposition 8 as codified in Penal Code
section 25(b). The Court of Appeal in People v. Phillips (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 170,
173 [99 Cal.Rptr.2d 448], expressly found that “the test for insanity as stated in
section 25, subdivision (b) applies also to determine whether a person is an idiot
pursuant to section 26.” Accordingly, the committee followed Phillips in drafting
this instruction.
RELATED ISSUES
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, 704 P.2d 752];
see also People v. Stress (1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271–1274 [252 Cal.Rptr.
913].)
Penal Code Sections 1016, 1017, 1026, 1027
The Supreme Court found in In re Ramon M. (1978) 22 Cal.3d 419, 427 [149
Cal.Rptr. 387, 584 P.2d 524] that the same test for legal incapacity should apply to
both insanity and mental retardation. Moreover, the court concluded that the
Legislature “probably intended [Pen. Code, §§ 1016, 1017, 1026, 1027] to apply to
all persons who assertedly lack mental capacity to commit crime [citation]. In light
of this legislative intent, and of the identity of the legal test for mental incapacity
and insanity . . . we conclude that the term ‘insanity’ in Penal Code sections 1016
through 1027 refers to mental incapacity, whether arising from mental illness or
mental retardation. Accordingly a defendant asserting a defense of mental incapacity
should raise that defense by separate plea (see Pen. Code, §§ 1016, 1017), may
DEFENSES AND INSANITY
CALCRIM No. 3455
1043

obtain a bifurcated trial (see Pen. Code, § 1026), [and] must prove his incapacity by
a preponderance of the evidence [citation] . . . .” (Id. at p. 427, fn. 10.)
Extension of Commitment
The test for extending a person’s commitment is not the same as the test for
insanity. (People v. Superior Court (Williams) (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 477, 490 [284
Cal.Rp