Brief Fact Summary. Appellant was convicted of second-degree murder. The Court held a rehearing to determine the proper standard for the insanity test.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
Facts. Appellant was convicted of second degree murder and carrying a dangerous weapon. The Court ordered a rehearing en banc to consider the appropriate standard for insanity. The old standard stated a traditional test in terms of right and wrong and irresistible impulse.
Issue. Whether there should be a new standard adopted with respect to the defense of insanity.