Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

State v. Thomas

8 Wn. App. 495 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
State v. Thomas

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. McDonald

    89 Wn. 2d 256 (Wash. 1977)   Cited 48 times

    Nevertheless, the law at the time although not evolving with great clarity, was clearly as stated in the trial court's instruction. See State v. Thomas, 8 Wn. App. 495, 507 P.2d 153 (1973), for a discussion by James, J., of the evolution of the test. The critical distinction is that the test is now expressed in the disjunctive as it was originally stated in M'Naghten's Case, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (H.L. 1843).

  2. State v. Jones

    84 Wn. 2d 823 (Wash. 1974)   Cited 17 times

    As in the other cases cited, there was no discussion of the mental processes involved in knowledge or appreciation. State v. Thomas, 8 Wn. App. 495, 507 P.2d 153 (1973), a Court of Appeals decision cited by the prosecutor, holds that the M'Naghten rule as applied in this state requires the defendant to show both an inability to perceive the nature and quality of the act with which he is charged, and an inability to tell right from wrong with reference to such act. The court followed the precedents of this court with approval.

  3. State v. Ashley

    16 Wn. App. 413 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976)   Cited 7 times

    The ultimate question for decision is one of fact. State v. Thomas, 8 Wn. App. 495, 507 P.2d 153 (1973); State v. Reece, 79 Wn.2d 453, 486 P.2d 1088 (1971); State v. Johnson, 67 Wn.2d 671, 409 P.2d 655 (1965); State v. Putzell, 40 Wn.2d 174, 242 P.2d 180 (1952). There is nothing in the record before us which indicates that the withdrawal of defendant's plea of guilty was necessary to correct a manifest injustice.

  4. State v. Grant

    9 Wn. App. 260 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 36 times
    In Grant, the court explained that "[h]ad [the detective] been a party to the illegal recording and taping, a different question would be presented."

    Since then, the appellate courts of the state have reaffirmed the M'Naghten rule as the correct rule to be applied in insanity cases. State v. Ferrick, 81 Wn.2d 942, 506 P.2d 860 (1973); State v. Boggs, 80 Wn.2d 427, 495 P.2d 321 (1972); State v. Reece, 79 Wn.2d 453, 486 P.2d 1088 (1971); State v. Thomas, 8 Wn. App. 495, 507 P.2d 153 (1973); State v. Myers, 6 Wn. App. 557, 494 P.2d 1015 (1972). The judgment is affirmed.

  5. State v. Anderson

    509 P.2d 80 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 2 times
    In State v. Anderson, 8 Wn. App. 782, 509 P.2d 80 (1973), the Washington Court of Appeals found that, where the examining psychiatrist had warned defendant of his Miranda rights prior to conducting his examination, the state had satisfied its "heavy burden" imposed by Miranda.

    He further asserts that, in any event, the instruction given "erroneously articulated and applied the M'Naghten rule." In State v. Thomas, 8 Wn. App. 495, 507 P.2d 153 (1973), we pointed out that the Washington Supreme Court has consistently adhered to its interpretation of the M'Naghten rule and has consistently rejected the Durham and other "irresistible impulse" definitions of criminal insanity. In State v. Ferrick, 81 Wn.2d 942, 506 P.2d 860 (1973), the Washington Supreme Court again reiterated its commitment to its version of M'Naghten. The instruction given was a correct definition of criminal insanity in Washington.