Jury Instruction No. 15 is in accord with this jurisdiction's test for determining criminal responsibility of an accused, which is commonly referred to as the M'Naghten rule. The instructions are in accord with this Court's decisions in Revard v. State, 332 P.2d 967 (Okla. Cr. 1958), and Dare v. State, 378 P.2d 339 (Okla. Cr. 1963), wherein this Court approved similar instructions as appropriate and proper in cases of criminal responsibility on pleas of insanity. See also, Dukes v. State, supra.
The appellant's initial assignment of error is that the State's failure to rebut his insanity defense mandated a directed verdict. 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." In every case there is an initial presumption of sanity.
The M'Naghten Rule — which is the test of criminal responsibility in this State — holds that a person who was capable of distinguishing right from wrong at the time an act was committed is to be held responsible for that act. Revard v. State, Okla. Cr. 332 P.2d 967 (1958); Suits v. State, Okla. Cr. 507 P.2d 1261 (1973). This rule is applied when a defense of insanity is raised, to determine whether an accused shall be held responsible for the commission of the act charged, and the court does not have to rule on this issue in a certification hearing.
Robison v. State, Okla. Cr. 430 P.2d 814 (1967). In the case of Revard v. State, Okla. Cr. 332 P.2d 967 (1958), certiorari denied, 359 U.S. 1000, 79 S.Ct. 1138, 3 L.Ed.2d 1030, wherein the defendant was charged with the beating and stomping death of his wife, this Court held in Syllabus 8: "Where there is a question as to what caused the death of deceased, and there are many bruises over the body of the deceased shown to have been inflicted by defendant, photographs of body were admissible in evidence to illustrate or clarify the issue, where such photographs were shown to be faithful reproductions of what they purported to represent."
Merrick v. State, 56 Okla. Cr. 88, 34 P.2d 281 (1934). Revard v. State, Okla. Cr. 332 P.2d 967, certiorari denied 359 U.S. 1000, 79 S.Ct. 1138, 3 L.Ed.2d 1030. Cunningham v. State, 70 Okla. Cr. 131, 105 P.2d 264 (1940). There was competent evidence before the jury from which they could conclude defendant was legally sane and therefore criminally responsible for his acts.
There was nothing from which the trial judge could even imply that this petitioner did not comprehend what was taking place, as well as the circumstances of the offense for which petitioner was charged. This Court said in Revard v. State, Okla. Cr.App., 332 P.2d 967, certiorari denied 359 U.S. 1000, 79 S.Ct. 1138, 3 L.Ed.2d 1030: "The test of criminal responsibility for committing criminal act is fixed at point where accused has mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong as applied to the particular act, and to understand the nature and consequences of such act."
"A morbid propensity to commit prohibited acts existing in the mind of a person who is not shown to have been incapable of knowing the wrongfulness of such acts, forms no defense to a prosecution therefor." The instructions given by the court amply covered the issue of criminal responsibility and were couched in similar language to those approved by this Court in Dare v. State, supra; Revard v. State, Okla. Cr. 332 P.2d 967, and cases cited therein. In accordance with the prior decisions of this Court, we are of the opinion that this assignment of error is without merit and reiterate our position stated in Dare v. State, supra, that
"The mental ability or capacity to distinguish between right and wrong as applied to the particular act, and to understand the nature and probable consequences of such act, that is to say, the capacity to know right from wrong, and to know then that the particular act, alleged to have been committed, was wrong." The court in giving this instruction relied upon Revard v. State, Okla. Cr. 332 P.2d 967, wherein this Court approved an instruction couched in identical language. This instruction, commonly referred to as the M'Naghten Rules, has been the test used in determining criminal responsibility of an accused in every decision rendered by this Court with the exception of Adair v. State, 6 Okla. Cr. 284, 118 P. 416, 44 L.R.A., N.S., 119 and Claycomb v. State, 22 Okla. Cr. 315, 211 P. 429, wherein the Court instructed on "irresistible impulse".