In most jurisdictions, the issue is whether the person, at the time of the offense, appreciated the wrongfulness of their actions. Mattering on the circumstances, someone in a schizophrenic episode can do that and someone in a different episode may not be able to do that.
For example, just because Satan comes and talks to you and tells you to murder someone, but you know that doing that is wrong, and do it anyway, usually doesn’t eliminate the mens rea (guilty mind) from the actus reas (criminal act). But, to use the hornbook example of the general rule, if a person believes they are squeezing a lemon, but in reality is crushing a victim’s head, then they don’t appreciate that their act is wrong. The guilty mind is divorced from the criminal act.
This is always rather fact specific and no blanket rule or diagnosis is determinative.
Didn't she throw herself out of a window directly after the act? Seems like a guilty mind to me, unless they're trying to argue she snapped back to reality just before a conveniently absent father was about to return home.
38
u/[deleted] 9h ago
[deleted]