Maas v. Territory of Oklahoma

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Searcy

    118 Idaho 632 (Idaho 1990)   Cited 45 times
    Holding that the defense of insanity is not required by the federal constitution but noting that Idaho, by allowing evidence of mental illness to negate the required mens rea, "continues to recognize the basic common law premise that only responsible defendants may be convicted"

    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

  2. Sinclair v. State

    161 Miss. 142 (Miss. 1931)   Cited 40 times
    In Sinclair v. State, 161 Miss. 142, 132 So. 581 (1931) the court also held that the insanity defense was protected by the state constitution.

    "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.

  3. Dare v. State

    378 P.2d 339 (Okla. Crim. App. 1963)   Cited 27 times

    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.