State v. Johnson

399 A.2d 469 (1979)

Quick Summary

Quick Summary Icon

Bruce L. Johnson (defendant) appealed his conviction for serious crimes including murder, asserting insanity as a defense. The main issue before the Supreme Court of Rhode Island was whether to replace the outdated M’Naghten test for determining insanity.

The court concluded that a modernized standard from the Model Penal Code, considering both cognitive and volitional impairments, should replace M’Naghten. Consequently, a new trial was ordered to reassess Johnson’s criminal responsibility using this new standard.

Facts of the Case

Facts of the case Icon

Bruce L. Johnson (defendant) was brought before the court facing serious charges that included the murder, kidnapping, and assault with the intent to commit rape of a young girl, only 14 years of age. In response to these grave accusations, Johnson asserted that he was not guilty due to insanity.

Despite this plea, the jury determined that Johnson was sane at the time of the crime and subsequently found him guilty on all charges. Challenging the jury’s decision, Johnson appealed to the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, questioning the validity of the M’Naghten test, a legal standard for assessing insanity, and advocating for its replacement with a more modern criterion.

Procedural Posture and History

History Icon
  1. Bruce Johnson was charged with murder, kidnapping, and assault with intent to commit rape.
  2. Johnson pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity.
  3. The jury convicted Johnson, finding him sane.
  4. Johnson appealed the conviction, challenging the M’Naghten test for insanity.

I.R.A.C. Format


Issue Icon

Whether the Supreme Court of Rhode Island should discard the M’Naghten test in favor of a new standard for determining criminal responsibility in cases where defendants claim insanity.

Rule of Law

Rule Icon

The legal framework for determining criminal responsibility is rooted in the concept of free will and requires that culpability is established before punishment is administered. The M’Naghten test, which focuses solely on cognitive impairment, has been criticized for not considering volitional impairments and for demanding total incapacity for exculpation.

Reasoning and Analysis

Reasoning Icon

The court examined the evolution and criticism of the M’Naghten rule, noting that it failed to account for the complexities of mental illness and its impact on an individual’s volition. Acknowledging that modern medical and legal knowledge has outpaced M’Naghten’s narrow scope, the court found it necessary to adopt a new standard.

This new standard, based on the Model Penal Code, would consider both cognitive and volitional impairments and replace the absolute requirement of total incapacity with the concept of ‘substantial capacity.’ The court emphasized that the jury must remain the ultimate arbiter of criminal responsibility, even with expert testimony available.


Conclusion Icon

The Supreme Court of Rhode Island held that the M’Naghten test was inadequate and adopted a new standard for assessing criminal responsibility. The court ordered a new trial for Johnson on the issue of criminal responsibility based on this modernized rule.

Key Takeaways

Takeaway Icon
  1. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island recognized the inadequacy of the M’Naghten rule for determining criminal responsibility in light of modern medical and legal understanding.
  2. A new standard based on the Model Penal Code was adopted, which considers substantial capacity impairments rather than total incapacity.
  3. The court maintained the importance of preserving the jury’s role as the ultimate decision-maker in issues of criminal responsibility.

Relevant FAQs of this case

What constitutes legal insanity and how does it affect criminal responsibility?

Legal insanity is defined as a mental disorder that impairs a person’s ability to understand the nature or wrongfulness of their actions at the time of the crime. It affects criminal responsibility by potentially excusing or reducing culpability if the defendant can demonstrate they lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or conform their behavior to the requirements of law.

  • For example: If an individual suffering from severe schizophrenia commits a theft but, due to delusions, believes they are taking back what cosmic justice has deemed rightfully theirs, their grasp on reality may be so detached that it could fulfill the legal criteria for insanity.

How do modern legal standards for insanity differ from the traditional M'Naghten rule?

Modern legal standards for insanity often incorporate broader considerations than the M’Naghten rule, which strictly addresses cognitive awareness of right and wrong. Contemporary tests may include assessments of volitional capacity—whether the defendant was able to control their actions—as well as the ability to appreciate the criminality of their conduct, thereby presenting a more comprehensive review of mental state.

  • For example: Under a modern standard like the Model Penal Code test for sanity, a defendant might show evidence of an impulse control disorder that rendered them incapable of resisting the commission of a crime, despite understanding its wrongfulness, thus possibly meeting the criteria for legal insanity.

What role do juries play in determining the application of insanity defenses in criminal trials?

Juries are critical in evaluating whether a defendant should be deemed legally insane. They assess evidence and expert testimony about the defendant’s mental state at the time of offense to decide if the legal criteria for insanity have been met.

  • For example: In a trial where a defendant claims insanity after committing vandalism during a severe dissociative episode, it’s up to the jury to weigh psychiatric evaluations and facts presented to determine if this mental state indeed prevented understanding of or control over unlawful actions.


Last updated

Was this case brief helpful?

More Case Briefs in Criminal Law