The Court acknowledged that the M'Naghten formula was the recognized test for insanity, that it was a test of criminal responsibility rather than a medical test of insanity, that it has been followed in a classic fashion, that each doctor had compressed his final conclusion into the required M'Naghten strait jacket, and that the defense had proved by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity.
Both of these courts claimed to be following M'Naghten, though the Colby court decried its present use, and the Keaton court approved an instruction that included the requirements of any of the tests commonly discussed. It is obvious that these Judges, as well as many others, feel that M'Naghten is obsolete. It is also possible, considering our present state of knowledge, that a Due Process attack can be made on a continued traditional use of the test. Considering these onslaughts on our use of M'Naghten, is it possible to modify our procedure and terminology within the confines of Ohio case law and arrive at an adequate formulation and practice that will satisfy the bench, the bar, and the academics? The writer submits that it is.
Willey, Robert J.
"Criminal Responsibility: Knowledge, Will and Choice,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 1:
1, Article 1.
Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol1/iss1/1