However, the appropriateness of the defense has rarely been questioned, and only a few American jurisdictions have ever attempted to eliminate the concept from their criminal justice systems. Cases addressing the right and wrong test of insanity: State v. Shippey, 10 Minn. 223 (1865); Flanagan v. People, 52 N.Y. 467 (1873); Cunningham v. State, 56 Miss. 269 (1879); Guiteau's Case, 10 F. 161 (D.C. Cir. 1882); State v. Mowry, 37 Kan. 369, 15 P. 282 (1887); State v. Alexander, 30 S.C. 74, 8 S.E. 440 (1889); State v. Zorn, 22 Or. 591, 30 P. 317 (1892); State v. Harrison, 36 W. Va. 729, 15 S.E. 982 (1892); State v. O'Neil, 51 Kan. 651, 33 P. 287 (1893); State v. Hartley, 22 Nev. 342, 40 P. 372 (1895); Knights v. State, 58 Neb. 225, 78 N.W. 508 (1899); People v. Methever, 132 Cal. 326, 64 P. 481 (1901); Maas v. Territory, 10 Okla. 714, 63 P. 960 (1900); State v. Knight, 95 Me. 467, 50 A. 276 (1901); Schwartz v. State, 65 Neb. 196, 91 N.W. 190 (1902); People v. Silverman, 181 N.Y. 235, 73 N.E. 980 (1905); Turner v. Territory, 15 Okla. 557, 82 P. 650 (1905); State v. Wetter, 11 Idaho 433, 83 P. 341 (1905); People v. Willard, 150 Cal. 543, 89 P. 124 (1907); Duthey v. State, 131 Wis. 178, 111 N.W. 222 (1907); State v. Paulsgrove, 203 Mo. 193, 101 S.W. 27 (1907); Smith v. State, 95 Miss. 786, 49 So. 945 (1909); State v. Maioni, 78 N.J.L. 339, 74 A. 526 (1909); People v. Carlin, 194 N.Y. 448, 87 N.E. 805 (1909); State v. Brown, 36 Utah 46, 102 P. 641 (1909); State v. Craig, 52 Wn. 66, 100 P. 167 (1909); Oborn v. State, 143 Wis. 249, 126 N.W. 737 (1910); State v. Hassing, 60 Or. 81, 118 P. 195 (1911); State v. Jackson, 87 S.C. 407, 69 S.E. 883 (1911); State v. Riddle, 245 Mo. 451, 150 S.W. 1044 (1912); People v. Ashland, 20 Cal.App. 168, 128 P. 798 (1912); State v. English, 164 N.C. 497, 80 S.E. 72 (1913); People v. Harris, 169 Cal. 53, 14
"If the accused suggest insanity at the time of trial, should the question of present insanity be determined prior to arraignment and plea; if so, can this question be determined by the judge of the court or should it be submitted to a jury?" 14 R.C.L. 605, 610, Insanity, sections 58-61; 32 C.J. 751, Insane Persons, sections 550-552; 16 C.J. 789-791, Criminal Law, sections 2015-2017; Mass. v. Territory, 10 Okla. 714, 63 P. 960, 53 L.R.A. 814; Dietz v. State, 149 Wis. 462, 136 N.W. 166, Ann. Cas. 1913C, 732; Steward v. State, 124 Wis. 623, 102 N.W. 1079, 4 Ann. Cas. 389; Baughn v. State, 100 Ga. 554, 28 S.E. 68, 38 L.R.A. 579; Nobles v. Georgia, 168 U.S. 398, 18 S.Ct. 87, 42 L.Ed. 515; Hawie v. State, 83 So. 158, 121 Miss. 197; State v. Nordstrum, 21 Wn. 403, 58 P. 248, 53 L.R.A. 584. Hugh V. Wall, of Brookhaven, and J.H. Price, of Magnolia, for appellee.
Accordingly five questions were put to the fifteen judges of England regarding the law of insanity, and from their answers the "right-wrong rules", or M'Naghten Rules, are constituted. Maas v. Territory, 10 Okla. 714, 63 P. 960, 53 L.R.A. 814; Turner v. Territory, 15 Okla. 557, 82 P. 650; Alberty v. State, 10 Okla. Cr. 616, 140 P. 1025, 52 L.R.A., N.S., 248; Smith v. State, 12 Okla. Cr. 307, 155 P. 699; Owen v. State, 13 Okla. Cr. 195, 163 P. 548; Roe v. State, 17 Okla. Cr. 587, 191 P. 1048; Tittle v. State, 44 Okla. Cr. 287, 280 P. 865; Kennamer v. State, 59 Okla. Cr. 146, 57 P.2d 646; Merrick v. State, 56 Okla. Cr. 88, 34 P.2d 281; Gallagher v. State, 81 Okla. Cr. 15, 159 P.2d 562; Berryman v. State, Okla. Cr. 283 P.2d 558. The most recent case in which the M'Naghten test was retained is Doggett v. State, Okla. Cr. 371 P.2d 523.