Washington Law Review
Abstract
This is a criticism of the decision of the Supreme Court of Washington in the case of State vs. Maish. The opinion states that "appellant was accorded a fair trial in every respect, that the trial court committed no error in refusing to give the requested instruction, and that judgment and sentence of the trial court must be, and it is, affirmed." Reference is made to the above decision in detail, the instruction referred to was one requested by the defendant and refused by the trial court. It follows: "You are instructed that if you believe from the evidence that at the time of committing the acts charged in the information, the defendant was suffering from such a perverted and deranged condition of his mental faculties as to render him incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong, or unconscious at such time of the nature of the act charged in the indictment while committing the same, or where although conscious of them and able to distinguish between right and wrong, and to know the acts were wrong, yet his mind and his will the governing power of his mind was, otherwise involuntarily, so completely destroyed that his action was not subject to it but beyond his control, it will be your duty to acquit the defendant, and in such case your verdict shall be not guilty." This instruction clearly contains the "irresistible impulse plea," viz., "a deranged condition of his mental faculties where, although able to distinguish between right and wrong, yet the governing power of his mind was otherwise involuntarily so completely destroyed that his action was not subject to it, but beyond his control. "
First Page
1
Recommended Citation
Howard D. Hoedemaker,
"Irresistable Impulse" as a Defense in Criminal Law: A Criticism Based on Modern Psychiatric Concepts,
23 Wash. L. Rev. & St. B.J.
1
(1948).
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol23/iss1/2