JOSEPH COLE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the M'Naghten rule is the appropriate standard for determining criminal responsibility in insanity defense cases, and the trial court's rejection of the defense was supported by evidence.
Appellant was convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property, with his defense being insanity. The trial court, sitting as fact-finder, rejecte…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Irresistible Impulse Test cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant was informed against, tried and convicted of receiving and of concealing stolen property. His defense hinged on a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. On the trial, which was before the court without a jury, the issue of insanity was required to be decided by the judge as the trier of the facts. The evidence, though in conflict, furnished adequate support for the trial judge’s rejection of the insanity defense, and appellant has failed to show ground to disturb the trial court’s decision on that issue.
In determining the cause the trial court proceeded on the “right or wrong” test of the “rule in M’Naghten’s Case.” Counsel for appellant now urges that we abandon that test in favor of the “irresistible impulse” or “moral insanity” test adopted by the Supreme Court in the State of New Hampshire. We refuse that request, as did the Supreme Court of Florida when similarly importuned in the case of Piccott v. State, Fla.1960, 116 So.2d 626, 627, where the Court said:
“Defendant’s principal argument before us is directed to a plea that this Court should abandon the ‘right or wrong’ test or the ‘Rule in M’Naghten’s Case’ in measuring responsibility of one for criminal acts where the defense of insanity is made, in favor of the ‘irresistible impulse’ or ‘moral insanity’ test adopted by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire in State v. Pike, 1870, 49 N.H. 399, and the similar rule adopted by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Durham v. United States, 1954, 94 U.S. App.D.C. 228, 214 F.2d 862, 45 A.L.R. 2d 1430.
Counsel for defendant has done an outstanding job of researching this question and in presenting his views, both in his brief and before this Court. Yet we have not been convinced that the M’Naghten rule is not the best available rule for measuring the mental condition of the individual in terms of accountability for criminal acts. We therefore adhere to the Rule in M’Naghten’s case as do all other jurisdictions except the two above mentioned.”
For the reasons stated the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cole v. State, 181 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)…his right was denied without his knowledge and consent or acquiescence. Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded. . Cole v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 898. . Kemp v. State, Fla.App.1965, 177 So. 2d 58; Wooten v. State, Fla.App.1964, 163 So. 2d 305. . Gillyard v. State, Fla.App.1965, 175 So. 2d 798; Brookins v. State, Fla.App.1965, 174 So. 2d 578. . Mulvey v. State, Fla.1949, 41 So. 2d 156; Lowman v…
-
Cole v. State, 199 So. 2d 480 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)…4 Appendix after an evidentiary hearing. This is a third appearance of this matter here. On March 9, 1965, this court affirmed the conviction of the appellant of the crimes of receiving and of concealing stolen property. Cole v. State, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 898. Thereafter the defendant filed a motion in the trial court for relief from the judgment of conviction under Criminal Procedure Rule 1. He appealed to this court from an order summarily denying the motion. We [*481] reversed, and remanded for an evi…
Authorities Cited
- Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954)
- Piccott v. State, 116 So. 2d 626 (Fla. 1959)