State v. Carstens, 54211
| Decision Date | 15 December 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 54211,54211 |
| Citation | 182 N.W.2d 119 |
| Parties | STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Mary Lou CARSTENS, Appellant. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Paul H. Kinion and Thomas L. Koehler, Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., Richard N. Winders, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Clayton L. Wornson, County Atty., Mason City, for appellee.
Defendant Mary Lou Carstens was informed against by county attorney's true information and charged with the crime of murder in violation of section 690.2, Code, 1966. She was tried and convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree and following conviction was sentenced by the Cerro Gordo district court to life imprisonment in the Women's Reformatory at Rockwell City. She appeals from this judgment and we affirm.
Defendant assigns four errors upon which she relies for reversal, asserting error in the failure of the court to instruct upon the issue of defendant's insanity under the so-called Durham Rule and A.L.I. Rule. Through her attorneys who represent her for the purposes of this appeal, defendant alleges the trial court erred in giving instruction number 26, the pertinent parts of which are:
'Insanity, as the word is used in these instructions, means a diseased or deranged condition of the mind which renders a person incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of her act, or unable to distinguish right or wrong in relation to that act.
Defendant contends the instruction above was erroneous because it failed to include a statement of the Iowa rule on irresistible impulse. She also advances the argument that the court's instruction improperly defines insanity as it constitutes a legal defense to a crime. We are urged to adopt either the rule of United States v. Freeman, 2 Cir., 357 F.2d 606, (which is also commonly referred to as the A.L.I. Rule) or the rule in Durham v. United States, 94 U.S.App.D.C. 228, 214 F.2d 862, 45 A.L.R.2d 1430. The defendant further contends instruction 26 is ambiguous, misleading and presents no clear standard for the jury to determine what measure or quantum of proof is necessary for the defendant to meet or establish her defense of insanity.
The legal test for insanity in Iowa is still the M'Naghten Rule, the substance of which is set out in Instruction 26. State v. Harkness (Iowa) 160 N.W.2d 324, 337; State v. Arthur (Iowa) 160 N.W.2d 470, 478--479; State v. Booth (Iowa) 169 N.W.2d 869, 871.
However, we do not reach the substance of the asserted errors because the attorney who represented the defendant upon the trial of the case below failed to object or except to the instructions and to preserve the asserted error for consideration on appeal as is required by rule 196, R.C.P. State v. Gilmore (Iowa) 181 N.W.2d 145, filed November...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lass
...has applied the M'Naghten rule several times. State v. Allan, 166 N.W.2d 752 (Iowa); State v. Booth, 169 N.W.2d 869 (Iowa); State v. Carstens, 182 N.W.2d 119 (Iowa); State v. Hall, 214 N.W.2d 205 (Iowa); State v. Thomas, 219 N.W.2d 3 (Iowa). We adhere to it now. We do not find merit in defe......
-
Anderson v. State, 41755
...27 L.Ed.2d 33; Georgia, Clark v. State, 1968, 224 Ga. 311, 161 S.E.2d 836; Hawaii, § 703--4, Hawaii Rev.Stats.1968; Iowa, State v. Carstens, Iowa 1970, 182 N.W.2d 119; Kansas, State v. Coltharp, 1967, 199 Kan. 598, 433 P.2d 418; Louisiana, State v. Brodes, 1925, 160 La. 340, 107 So. 131; Mi......
-
State v. Thomas
...proper view the one that defendant espouses, which follows M'Naghten more closely. State v. Harkness, 160 N.W.2d 324 (Iowa); State v. Carstens, 182 N.W.2d 119 (Iowa). The words of Lord Chief Justice Tindal in M'Naghten's Case that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was la......
-
Twyford v. Weber
...for review. See rule 196, Rules of Civil Procedure, the applicable part of which rule as then in force is set out in State v. Carstens, 182 N.W.2d 119, 120--121 (Iowa 1970). The case is therefore ...