Maas v. Territory of Oklahoma

17 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. Wadkins v. State

    572 P.2d 998 (Okla. Crim. App. 1977)   Cited 2 times

    "`. . . [T]hat the doubt justifying the impaneling of a separate jury to try the issue of the defendant's present sanity, under the statute, must arise in the mind of the court from the facts and circumstances, which facts and circumstances should be of substantial character. . . .'" (Emphasis added, citations omitted) Also see, Grayson v. State, 85 Okla. Cr. 266, 188 P.2d 696 (1947), and Maas v. Territory, 10 Okla. 714, 63 P. 960 (1901). In the instant case no doubt arose in the mind of the court which had opportunity to observe the demeanor of the defendant.

  3. Pope v. State

    478 P.2d 801 (Alaska 1971)   Cited 30 times
    In Pope v. State, 478 P.2d 801, 805 (Alaska 1970), reh. denied, 480 P.2d 697 (Alaska 1971), a police officer saw a gun lying on the front seat of the defendant's car and seized it.

    If this is so, then Chase is no less an historical accident than M'Naghten's Case. The court in Chase relied on three cases: Jessner v. State, 202 Wis. 184, 231 N.W. 634, 71 A.L.R. 1005 (1930); Maas v. Territory, 10 Okl. 714, 63 P. 960 (1901); and Montgomery v. State, 68 Tex.Crim. 78, 151 S.W. 813 (1912). As the Note, "Criminal Insanity," UCLA-Alaska L.Rev., 8 Alaska L.J. 152, 153-54 (Aug. 1970), points out, these cases were decided before many of the modern advances in psychiatry had been widely disseminated.

  4. Hinex v. State

    417 P.2d 339 (Okla. Crim. App. 1966)   Cited 7 times

    (Emphasis added) See also Maas v. Territory, 10 Okla. 714, 63 P. 960, 53 L.R.A. 814; Grayson v. State, 85 Okla. Cr. 266, 188 P.2d 696. The only authority cited by defense counsel is Marshall v. Territory, 2 Okla. Cr. 136, 101 P. 139.

  5. 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.

  6. Chase v. State

    369 P.2d 997 (Alaska 1962)   Cited 36 times
    In Chase v. State, 369 P.2d 997 (Alaska 1962), however, this court adopted a particular version of what it regarded as the M'Naghten rule.

    202 Wis. 184, 231 N.W. 634, 639, 71 A.L.R. 1005 (1930). See also Montgomery v. State, 68 Tex.Cr.R. 78, 151 S.W. 813, 817 (1912) where the court said "It is almost inconceivable that a man could be sane enough to fully appreciate and know the nature and quality of an act, and yet not know whether it was right or wrong to commit such an act."; and Maas v. Territory, 10 Okl. 714, 63 P. 960, 961, 53 L.R.A. 814 (1901), where it was said that "knowledge of the wrongfulness of an act also embraces capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the same." A discussion of this question is found in Weihofen, Mental Disorder as a Criminal Defense 73-76 (1954).

  7. Revard v. State

    332 P.2d 967 (Okla. Crim. App. 1958)   Cited 8 times
    In Revard v. State, 332 P.2d 967 (Okla. Cr. 1958), this Court held that the test of criminal responsibility is whether the defendant could distinguish right from wrong as "applied to a particular act."

    (Emphasis supplied.) In the following cases the question raised has been treated at some length, and we find it unnecessary to here repeat: Mass. v. Territory, 1901, 10 Okla. 714, 63 P. 960, 53 L.R.A. 814; Turner v. Territory, 1905, 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; 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.App., 283 P.2d 558. There are many other cases from this court that might be cited and where the instruction given as to insanity as a defense was substantially as the instruction given in the within case.

  8. Acuff v. State

    283 P.2d 856 (Okla. Crim. App. 1955)   Cited 14 times

    , 10 Okla. 714, 63 P. 960, 53 L.R.A. 814;

  9. Rice v. State

    158 P.2d 912 (Okla. Crim. App. 1945)   Cited 14 times

    And if so, he should be by the trial court committed to one of the state hospitals for the insane, to be there kept until legally discharged. The Criminal Court of Appeals has had occasion many times to construe the above statutes prior to the amendment of 1935. Marshall v. Territory, 2 Okla. Cr. 136, 101 P. 139; Maas v. Territory, 10 Okla. 714, 63 P. 960, 53 L.R.A. 814; Signs v. State, 35 Okla. Cr. 340, 250 P. 938; Weiland v. State, 58 Okla. Cr. 108, 50 P.2d 741; Alder v. State, 53 Okla. Cr. 374, 12 P.2d 545; Johnson v. State, 73 Okla. Cr. 370, 121 P.2d 625; Ex parte Gilbert, 71 Okla. Cr. 268, 111 P.2d 205. The amendment to the statute has never been considered by this court.

  10. Ex Parte Gilbert

    111 P.2d 205 (Okla. Crim. App. 1941)   Cited 28 times

    This court has since its creation had occasion to have before it the construction of these statutes many times. Some of the cases are as follows: Marshall v. Territory, 2 Okla. Cr. 136, 101 P. 139; Maas v. Territory, 10 Okla. 714, 63 P. 960, 53 L. R. A. 814; Denton v. State, 58 Okla. Cr. 275, 53 P.2d 1136; Weiland v. State, 58 Okla. Cr. 108, 50 P.2d 741; Signs v. State, 35 Okla. Cr. 340, 250 P. 938; Alexander v. State, 66 Okla. Cr. 219, 90 P.2d 949; Lee v. State, 30 Okla. Cr. 14, 234 P. 654. It has also had before it in many illustrious cases the question of insanity as a defense in criminal cases.