Also known as: appreciates the criminality · appreciated the criminality · appreciating the criminality · appreciation of criminality · appreciate wrongfulness · know criminality · M'Naghten appreciation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A cognitive component of the insanity defense. A defendant lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of conduct when mental disease or defect prevents recognition that the act is wrongful under law.
Marcus drove his city bus into a crowded plaza after months of auditory hallucinations commanding him to act. Experts testified that his psychotic disorder left him unable to recognize the act as wrongful or to stop himself. The jury credited the testimony and found Marcus not responsible under the substantial-capacity test.
Ross was convicted of capital murder after shooting a candidate during a town meeting while under fixed delusions. At the penalty phase his psychiatrist testified that the delusional disorder severely impaired Ross's ability to recognize the wrongfulness of the shooting. The court admitted the testimony as relevant to whether a sentence of imprisonment should be imposed instead of death.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Carlos entered chambers carrying a handgun and threatened the judge while convinced the judge was an impostor erasing his identity. Unrebutted expert testimony established that his schizoaffective disorder left him without substantial capacity to recognize the threat as wrongful. The jury found him not criminally responsible.
A defendant convicted of murder offered evidence at sentencing that mental disease had impaired his recognition of the wrongfulness of the killing. The sentencer considered the impairment when deciding between death and imprisonment.
Terry withheld life-saving medication from a patient while believing the drugs were poisoned by a conspiracy. Years of competent practice and coherent post-incident statements showed she retained substantial capacity to recognize the wrongfulness of denying treatment. The court held her criminally responsible.
Atkins was convicted of capital murder. A psychologist testified that his mild mental retardation produced an impaired capacity to recognize the criminality of the conduct. The evidence was considered at sentencing as a mitigating factor.
The defendant must be unable to recognize that the act is wrongful under law because of mental disease or defect. The impairment need not be total. It is enough that the disease substantially interferes with that recognition at the time of the conduct.
Supporting sources
No. The modern test excuses a defendant who lacks substantial capacity rather than complete capacity. Partial awareness of illegality does not defeat the defense when the mental disease substantially impairs recognition of wrongfulness.
Supporting sources
The appreciation component addresses cognitive recognition of wrongfulness. The separate volitional prong addresses the ability to control conduct and conform it to law. Either prong, if substantially impaired by mental disease, satisfies the defense.
Supporting sources
No. When a sentencer may choose between death and imprisonment, evidence that mental disease impaired the defendant's capacity to appreciate criminality is admissible as mitigation favoring a sentence of imprisonment.
Supporting sources
Not necessarily. The inquiry focuses on capacity at the exact time of the conduct. Prior competent performance may show retained capacity but does not automatically negate substantial impairment caused by acute symptoms of mental disease.
Supporting sources
…acted under duress or under the domination of another person. "(g) At the time of the murder, the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired as a result of mental disease or defect or intoxication. "(h) The youth of the defendant at…