Pleading Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI):The Four Tests for Pleading NGRI

By Katrina Azar’27

Fewer than five states in the United States do not consider any insanity defenses on criminal trials. (1) Regardless, the remaining states utilize one of four insanity tests: the M’Naghten rule, the Durham test, the irresistible impulse test, and the Model Penal Code test. (2) While the beginnings of using an insanity defense originated in the United Kingdom, this defense quickly made its way to the United States and continues to be an influential aspect in the sector of criminal law, as it could be the defining difference between a guilty verdict and an innocent one.

The M'Naghten rule (3) marked the initial test for criminal insanity with the 1843 United Kingdom case Queen v. M’Naghten. (4) (5) Daniel M'Naghten shot and murdered the Prime Minister’s secretary Edward Drummond, as he was convinced Drummond was the Prime Minister. Asserting that “the tories” were plotting his own death, M'Naghten claimed that he needed to execute this murder. Found not guilty “by reason of insanity,” the defendant spent the remainder of his life in a mental institution; however, the uproar resulting from the jury’s decision spurred a more severe test for criminal insanity. Under the new terms, defendants were assumed sane unless they could prove that while committing a criminal act, they were either not aware of their actions or were conscious of their decisions but did not realize they were immoral. (6)

The United States adopted this same test in 1847, in People v. William Freeman. (7) Freeman was originally sentenced to prison for five years due to a wrongful charge of theft. Due to his lack of cooperation, he was commonly beaten by the prison guards. During one of these beatings, Freeman obtained an acute brain injury resulting in “mental confusion and deafness.” (8) After being released, the spiteful Freeman ended up killing four members from the same family; ultimately, he was found and detained forty miles from the scene of the crime. 

Freeman’s lawyer tried to secure a fair trial for Freeman, and he argued that under the M'Naghten rule, Freeman should be found not guilty by reason of insanity. However, the jury found Freeman “sane to stand trial,” and the court proceeded to proclaim him guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. Nevertheless, a writ of order in the New York Supreme Court of Judicature was executed, and the new Justice decided that although Freeman could stand trial, this should not influence the acceptance of evidence to reinforce the claim that Freeman was insane. The initial sentence was reversed, but Freeman passed away from tuberculosis shortly after. (10) People v. William Freeman showcased the unprecedented use of the M’naghten rule in the United States; currently, it is applied in about half of the states, while the remaining states use one of the other three tests for pleading insanity.

The longevity of the discussion of free-will raises questions about whether it is possible for a defendant to be aware of their immoral actions yet irresistibly bound to commit them due to a lack of self-control. (11) With just a few states employing the irresistible impulse test and its employment being rare, this test states that those affected by a “mental disease or defect” may be found NGRI if it causes them to be unable to resist impulses to commit a crime. (12) However, the irresistible impulse test has received criticism. In criminal law, for example, there is no “partial responsibility.” (13) The law is extremely strict, placing judges in the difficult position of declaring a defendant either fully responsible for a crime or fully irresponsible for a crime based on insanity. (14) Another challenge accompanying the decision to plead insanity based on irresistible impulse is that it is difficult to prove that the defendant’s mental illness resulted in a complete loss of control and that their actions were based entirely on impulses. Moreover, prosecutors may argue that the defendant was capable of control and claim that the crime was premeditated, which also leads to a challenging decision for the judge or jury to make. (15) After all, it is difficult to prove that the defendant was insane during the time the criminal act was committed, especially if during trial they are sane. The first use of the irresistible impulse defense took place in Alabama with Parsons V. State, showcasing how this method of pleading insane may not be as effective as the other tests. (16) Bennett Parson’s wife and daughter were found guilty for his murder, even though the wife’s lawyer asserted that Mrs. Parson’s delusions and insanity caused her to shoot her husband. (17)

A little under a century later, Durham v. United States established another measure of insanity—the Durham rule, which allows a defendant to plead not guilty by reason of insanity if “a mental disease or defect” was the “but-for-cause” for a criminal crime. (19) (20) (21) Because the but-for cause is a salient factor for being deemed guilty in criminal law, if insanity resulted in causation, the defendant is found NGRI. The Durham test also provided a method for psychiatrists to give the jury evidence and “knowledge concerning mental life.” (22)

In 1954, Monte Durham was convicted of housebreaking, and his defense was that of insanity. Durham’s record with psychiatric disorders began when he was a teenager. At 17, he was discharged from the Navy due to his suffering from “a profound personality disorder.” (23) He later encountered difficulties with the law, attempted suicide, and found himself in the hospital, as well as in detainment. When Durham was finally “mentally competent to stand trial” for his housebreaking attempt, his lawyer insisted that “...in your decision send him back to Saint Elizabeth’s Hospital… if they let him out on the street it is their responsibility," which emphasized Durham’s abnormal mental state as well as his history of mental illnesses. (24) The trial ended with an NGRI outcome.

Currently, there are many obstacles with utilizing this test of insanity. For instance, while the Durham test tried to simplify the M'Naghten Rule (the former does not take whether the defendant knew his actions were immoral into account) , applying it is challenging due to the unclear definition of what it means to have a mental disease, defect, and the like. (25) (26) Proving difficult, the Durham Rule was deserted by the Circuit Court in 1972. Only one state—New Hampshire— currently employs the Durham test. (27)

Around the time the Durham Rule was abandoned, the Model Penal Code test (MPC test) grew in popularity due to its flexibility. Under this test, an insanity defense is invoked if the defendant could not act within the confines of the law due to a diagnosed mental disorder or could not comprehend the criminality of his or her behavior. (28) Similar to the Durham Rule, the mental disease must be diagnosed by a credible, licensed mental health professional. (29) The attitude towards the MPC test changed when it defended John Hinckley Jr. 's attempted assassination of former President Ronald Reagan in 1981. (30) In United States v. Hinckley, Hinckley, a man with a lengthy history of mental illnesses, shot President Reagan in hopes of obtaining the attention of the actress Jodie Foster. (31) (32) The President survived, and Hinckley was deemed not guilty by reason of mental illness. As a result, he spent time in St. Elizabeth’s hospital in Washington D.C. (33) This situation raised awareness to the idea that the court should notice the degree of mental illness in a defendant instead of merely if a defendant is mentally ill. (34) However, this is challenging when the court must either label a defendant as sane or insane, which constitutes much of their heavy verdict. (35) Regardless, the verdict stunned America.

Despite the long history of raising an NGRI case and most states still utilizing at least one of the four tests today, an insanity defense is used in less than one percent of trials, and even fewer are successful. (36) If a defendant is found guilty yet suffers from a mental disorder, after their time incarcerated, their recidivism rate and tendency to re-offend may be high. (37) With more work to do in the legal system, the future of the insanity defense is likely to change over time.

Endnotes

(1) “The Insanity Defense among the States.” 2016. Findlaw. April 4, 2016. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-among-the-states.html. ‌

(2) Busby, John C. 2009. “M’naghten Rule.” LII / Legal Information Institute. September 23, 2009. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/m%27naghten_rule.

(3) Robert F. Schopp, "Returning to M'Naghten to Avoid Moral Mistakes: One Step Forward, Or Two Steps Backward for the Insanity Defense," Arizona Law Review 30, no. 1 (1988): 135-154. Also called an “ignorance standard” due to the defendant’s capacity (or lack thereof) of awareness on the crime committed.

(4) Queen v. M’Naghten, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 [1843]

(5) Busby, John C. 2009. “M’naghten Rule.” LII / Legal Information Institute. September 23, 2009. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/m%27naghten_rule.

(6) Id.

(7) People v. William Freeman.

(8) “People v. William Freeman (1847).” 2021. LII / Legal Information Institute. 2021. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/people_v._william_freeman_(1847)#:~:text=Primary%20tabs-,People%20v.,of%20prison%20with%20hard%20labor.

(9) “People v. William Freeman, 1846 - First Use of the Insanity Defense in the United States.” 2019. Historical Society of the New York Courts. August 7, 2019. https://history.nycourts.gov/case/people-v-freeman/.

(10) Id.

(11) Waite, John Barker. “Irresistible Impulse and Criminal Liability.” Michigan Law Review 23, no. 5 (1925): 443–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/1279157.

(12) “Irresistible Impulse Test.” 2023. LII / Legal Information Institute. 2023. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/irresistible_impulse_test#:~:text=Under%20this%20test%2C%20a%20defendant,impulse%20to%20commit%20a%20crime..

(13) Waite, John Barker. “Irresistible Impulse and Criminal Liability.” Michigan Law Review 23, no. 5 (1925): 443–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/1279157.

(14) Id.

(15) “Irresistible Impulse Test.” 2023. LII / Legal Information Institute. 2023. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/irresistible_impulse_test#:~:text=Under%20this%20test%2C%20a%20defendant,impulse%20to%20commit%20a%20crime. ‌

(16) Parsons v. United States, 81 Ala.577, 2 So. 854 (1887)

(17) “Parsons v. State.” 2019. Quimbee. May 13, 2019. https://www.quimbee.com/cases/parsons-v-state#. ‌

(18) Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, s.v. “but-for,” accessed October 24, 2023, https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/but-for.

(19) Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 (1954).

(20) “Durham Test.” 2022. LII / Legal Information Institute. 2022. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/durham_test. ‌

(21) Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, s.v. “but-for,” accessed October 24, 2023, https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/but-for.

(22) Durham, 214 F.2d at 876

(23) Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954).

(24) Id.

(25) “Durham Test.” 2022. LII / Legal Information Institute. 2022. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/durham_test. ‌

(26) Legal, US. 2023. “The Durham Rule – Criminal Law.” Uslegal.com. 2023. https://criminallaw.uslegal.com/defense-of-insanity/the-durham-rule/#:~:text=The%20test%20was%20criticized%20because,Court%20abandoned%20it%20in%201972.. ‌

(27) Id.

(28) “The Insanity Defense in Criminal Law Cases.” 2018. Justia. April 25, 2018. https://www.justia.com/criminal/defenses/insanity/#:~:text=Under%20the%20Model%20Penal%20Code,after%20it%20led%20to%20the. ‌

(29) “The Model Penal Code Test for Legal Insanity.” 2016. Findlaw. April 4, 2016. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-model-penal-code-test-for-legal-insanity.html. ‌

(30) Id.

(31) United States v. Hinckley, 525 F. Supp. 1342 (D.D.C. 1981)

(32) Super User. 2023. “John Hinckley’s Letter to Jodie Foster Written Immediately before Assassination.” Famous-Trials.com. 2023. https://www.famous-trials.com/johnhinckley/533-letter. ‌

(33) “In Remembrance: 40 Years since the Assassination Attempt on President Reagan.” 2021. Secretservice.gov. 2021. https://www.secretservice.gov/reagan40thanniversary. ‌

(34) Colin S. Diver, "The Wrath of Roth," Yale Law Journal 94, no. 6 (May 1985): 1529-1544

(35) Linder, Douglas. 2007. “The Trial of John W. Hinckley, Jr.” Social Science Research Network, January. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1030556. ‌

(36) “A Crime of Insanity - Insanity on Trial | FRONTLINE | PBS.” 2023. Pbs.org. 2023. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/faqs.html. ‌

(37) Kachulis, Louis. 2017. “INSANE in the MENS REA: WHY INSANITY DEFENSE REFORM IS LONG OVERDUE.” https://gould.usc.edu/students/journals/rlsj/issues/assets/docs/volume26/Summer2017/2.Kachulis.pdf. ‌