INSANITY
(N.J.S.A. 2C:4‑1)
Apart from his/her
general denial of guilt, the defendant maintains that he/she is not
guilty of the crime charged by reason of insanity.
If you find that the State has
failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any essential element of the offense,
or the defendant's participation in the offense, you must find the defendant
not guilty and you need not consider the evidence as to the defendant's
insanity.
If you find that the State has
proved beyond a reasonable doubt each essential element of the offense, and the
defendant's participation in the offense, you must then consider the evidence
as to the defendant's insanity.
All persons are assumed capable of
committing crimes. Insane persons,
however, are not capable of committing crimes.
It is, therefore, necessary for me to instruct you with respect to the
law of insanity so far as it relates to the responsibility of a person for the
commission of a crime.
First of all, the law entertains no
prejudice against the defense of insanity.
On the contrary, if the defense of insanity is sufficiently established,
the law allows the defendant the benefit of it by an acquittal of all criminal
responsibility. To consider this defense, it is necessary that you understand
the law's concept of criminal responsibility.
Our society and our law recognize that some people may be bad and some
people may be sick. A hostile act, that
is, an illegal act, may in one case spring from wickedness and in another from
some infirmity or sickness of the mind which the individual did not
design. It is society's moral judgment,
recognized by our law, that a forbidden act should not be punished criminally
unless done with a knowledge of wrongdoing.
The law, however, from
considerations of public policy, the welfare of society and the safety of human
life, proceeds with care, requiring that the proof of such a defense of
insanity be established consistent with a standard recognized by the law. Under our law all persons are assumed to be
sane and, therefore, responsible for their conduct until the contrary is
established. Insanity is an affirmative
defense and the burden of proving it by a preponderance of the evidence is on
the defendant who asserts the defense.
If there is no preponderance of evidence of insanity, the defense of
insanity fails and the defendant stands in the position of a sane individual
responsible on all the evidence in the case for his/her acts,
whatever you may find them to have been.
The law adopts a standard of its own
as a test of criminal responsibility, a standard not always in harmony with the
views of psychiatrists. If at the time
of committing the act the defendant was laboring under such a defect of reason
from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of
the act he/she was doing or if defendant did know it,
that he/she did not know what he/she was doing was wrong, the defendant was
then legally insane and, therefore, not criminally responsible for his/her
conduct.
As you can see, the law regards
insanity as a disease of the mind. It
may be temporary or permanent in its nature, but the condition must be a mental
disease.
An accused may have the most absurd
and irrational notions on some subject; he/she may be unsound in mind, and be a fit
subject for confinement and treatment in a mental hospital; but, if at the time
of the offense(s) defendant had the mental capacity to distinguish right from
wrong and to understand the nature and quality of the act done by him/her, he/she is subject to the criminal law. These principles must necessarily be the
governing principles in the administration of the criminal law, or the most
terrible crimes would not be punishable, for such crimes are almost always
committed under the influence of an impulse which overcomes the restraint which
usually prevents the commission of a crime.
Therefore, to establish insanity as
a defense to the criminal charge in this case the defendant must prove, by a
preponderance of the evidence, that defendant was laboring under such a defect
of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the
act, or if defendant did know it, that he/she did not know that what he/she was doing was wrong.
The term "preponderance of the
evidence" means the greater weight of credible evidence in the case. It does not necessarily mean the evidence of
the greater number of witnesses but means that evidence which carries the
greater convincing power to your minds.
Keep in mind, however, that although
the burden rests upon the defendant to establish the defense of insanity by a
preponderance of the credible evidence, the burden of proving the defendant
guilty of the offense charged here beyond a reasonable doubt is always on the
State, and that burden never shifts.
The question is not whether the defendant,
when he/she engaged in the deed, in fact actually
thought or considered whether the act was right or wrong, but whether defendant
had sufficient mind and understanding to have enabled him/her to
comprehend that it was wrong if defendant had used his/her
faculties for that purpose.
To determine whether the defendant
has established by the preponderance of the evidence that, at the time of the
commission of the alleged offense, defendant was laboring under such a defect
of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he/she was doing, or if defendant did know it,
that he/she did
not know what he/she was
doing was wrong you should consider all of the relevant and material evidence
having a bearing on his/her mental
condition, including his/her
conduct at the time of the alleged act, his/her
conduct since, any mental history, any lay and medical testimony which you have
heard from witnesses who have testified for the defense and for the State, and
such other evidence by the testimony of witnesses or exhibits in this case that
may have a bearing upon, and assist you in your determination of the issue of his/her mental
condition.
There is a conflict of medical
testimony, and you will have to determine where the truth lies. As is true with all issues of fact, the issue
is for you to resolve after a careful consideration, comparison and evaluation
of all the evidence which is material to, or relevant on, the issue of the
defendant's sanity. The assumed sanity
of the defendant is not overcome until you determine that the defendant has
sustained his/her burden
of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that, at the time of the offense
alleged, defendant was insane under the legal definition of insanity and,
therefore, is absolved of criminal responsibility for conduct for which he/she would
otherwise be criminally responsible under the law. The jury is the sole judge of the weight to
be given to lay and psychiatric testimony.
Generally speaking, no distinction is made between expert testimony and
evidence of another character. The same
tests that are applied in evaluating lay testimony must be used in judging the
weight and sufficiency of expert testimony.
You are the sole judges of the credibility of the medical witnesses, as
well as all other witnesses, and the weight to be accorded to the testimony of
each. You saw and you heard them. You had the opportunity to observe their
attitude and demeanor on the witness stand. You had the opportunity to hear
their means of obtaining knowledge of the facts, and to notice their power of
discernment, their candor or evasion, if any, and their general and special
professional and expert qualifications and background. These factors, any possible bias in favor of
the side for whom each testified, and any other matters which serve to
illuminate the statements of each may all be considered by you in determining
the credibility of the expert testimony and the weight to be accorded to it or
any part of it.
The medical experts have testified
that statements were made to them by the defendant which statements were part
of the history they secured from the defendant.
As I have previously instructed you, these statements should not be
considered as substantive evidence against the defendant relating to his/her guilt
or innocence of the alleged offense, but only as evidence tending to support
the ultimate expert conclusion of the psychiatrist receiving the history on the
test of insanity. The witness, in
effect, is not saying that such history is true. The witness is merely testifying that the
statements comprising the history were made to him/her. You may, in fact, determine from the evidence
in the case that the facts set forth in such history are true, not true, or
true in part only, and, in the light of such findings, you should decide what
effect such determination has upon the weight to be given to the opinion of the
expert.
However, if a medical expert has
testified that his/her opinion hinges upon the truth of the matter asserted by
the defendant at the time the defendant gave the history to the doctor, the
probative value of the psychiatrist's opinion will depend upon whether from all
of the evidence in the case, you find that those facts are true. The same is true for any other facts relied
upon by the expert. If the
doctor has testified that he/she accepts as true certain facts on which the
doctor bases his/her opinion, your acceptance or rejection of the doctor's
opinion will depend to some extent on your findings as to the truth of these
facts.
VERDICTS
You may
return one of three verdicts
(1) Not guilty.
(2) Guilty.
(3) Not guilty by reason of insanity.
If you find that the State has
failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all or any one of the essential
elements of the offense, or the defendant's participation in the offense, you
must find the defendant not guilty.
If you find that the State has
proved beyond a reasonable doubt all the essential elements of the offense and
the defendant's participation therein, and if you also find that the defendant
has not established the defense of insanity to a preponderance of the credible
evidence, then you must find the defendant guilty of the offense.
If you
find that the State has proved all the elements of the crime and the defendant's
participation therein beyond a reasonable doubt, and if you also find that the
defendant has established the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the
credible evidence, your verdict must be "not guilty by reason of
insanity" and you shall so report and declare your verdict.
A verdict of not guilty by reason of
insanity does not necessarily mean that the defendant will be freed, or that
the individual will be indefinitely committed to a mental institution. Under our law, if you find the defendant not
guilty by reason of insanity, it will then be for the court to conduct a
further hearing and among other matters determine whether or not the
defendant's insanity continues to the present and whether defendant poses a
danger to the community or to himself/herself. The resolution of those issues will
ultimately determine what appropriate restrictions need to be placed on the
defendant. Thus, procedures exist to
adequately provide for the defendant and to protect the public in the event
defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity.
VERDICTS
Again,
you may return one of three verdicts:
(1) Not guilty.
(2) Guilty.
(3) Not guilty by reason of insanity.
