The question before the court was whether "incapable of distinguishing right from wrong" refers to distinguishing between moral right and moral wrong, vs. being able to distinguish what is legal from what is not legal.[3]: 615
The court concluded:
"that the term 'wrong' in the statutory definition of insanity refers to moral wrong."[3]: 622
The court wrote "the phrase 'incapable of distinguishing right from wrong' refers to a person's cognitive ability, due to a mental disease or defect, to distinguish right from wrong as measured by a societal standard of morality... [and] does not refer to a purely personal and subjective standard of morality."[3]: 623 The court also examined the relationship between the legal test of insanity and a deific decree, the belief that an act is not wrong because God ordered it.[3]: 623
Robert Pasqual Serravo [4] was reading his Bible then went upstairs and stabbed his sleeping wife in the back. She did not die, and woke up. He told her an intruder stabbed her and he called for emergency assistance.[3]: 616 When police arrived, he told them he left the garage door open, heard his front door slam, went upstairs to check on his wife, and found her bleeding.[3]: 615–625 His wife later found letters written by Serravo admitting to the stabbing, confronted him, and he explained that God told him to sever their marriage by stabbing her, and called police who arrested and charged him.[3]: 616 Serravo's attorney raised the insanity defense.[3]: 616
The prosecution forensic psychiatrist found Serravo sane because while he believed his act was justified and so was not morally wrong because of a delusional system, he was aware his act was contrary to law.[3]: 616–17 One defense psychiatrist found that Serravo may have been able to tell what was or was not legally wrong, but his delusion made it impossible to tell moral right from wrong.[3]: 618 Other defense psychiatrists found that his delusions made him unable to tell right from wrong, in accordance with standards of society.[3]: 618 The question on appeal was whether "incapable of distinguishing right from wrong" refers to distinguishing between moral right and moral wrong, vs. being able to distinguish what is legal from what is not legal.[3]: 615
Referencesedit
^The Immutable Command Meets the Unknowable Mind: Deific Decree Claims and the Insanity Defense after People v. Serravo, ME Clark - Denv. UL Rev., 1992
^Conceptual Ambiguities in the Insanity Defense: State v. Wilson and the New Wrongfulness Standard, BV Ranade, Conn. L. Rev., 1997
Text of People v. Serravo is available from:CourtListenerGoogle ScholarJustiaLeaglevLex
January 01, 1970
people, serravo, supreme, court, colorado, 1992, criminal, case, involving, meaning, wrong, expression, incapable, distinguishing, right, from, wrong, appears, naghten, rule, insanity, defense, courtsupreme, court, coloradofull, case, namethe, people, state, c. People v Serravo Supreme Court of Colorado 823 P2d 128 1992 is a criminal case involving the meaning of wrong in the expression incapable of distinguishing right from wrong as it appears in the M Naghten rule for the insanity defense 1 2 3 615 625 People v SerravoCourtSupreme Court of ColoradoFull case nameThe People of the State of Colorado Petitioner v Robert Pasqual Serravo Respondent DecidedJanuary 13 1992 1992 01 13 Citation s 823 P 2d 128Case historyAppealed fromColorado Court of Appeals 797 P 2d 782 1990 Court membershipJudges sittingWilliam H Erickson Luis D Rovira George E Lohr Joseph R Quinn Howard M Kirshbaum Anthony Vollack Mary MullarkeyCase opinionsMajorityQuinnDissentVollackKeywordsInsanity defense The question before the court was whether incapable of distinguishing right from wrong refers to distinguishing between moral right and moral wrong vs being able to distinguish what is legal from what is not legal 3 615 The court concluded that the term wrong in the statutory definition of insanity refers to moral wrong 3 622 The court also found that the standard of moral wrongness was an objective standard not a subjective standard 3 622 The court wrote the phrase incapable of distinguishing right from wrong refers to a person s cognitive ability due to a mental disease or defect to distinguish right from wrong as measured by a societal standard of morality and does not refer to a purely personal and subjective standard of morality 3 623 The court also examined the relationship between the legal test of insanity and a deific decree the belief that an act is not wrong because God ordered it 3 623 Robert Pasqual Serravo 4 was reading his Bible then went upstairs and stabbed his sleeping wife in the back She did not die and woke up He told her an intruder stabbed her and he called for emergency assistance 3 616 When police arrived he told them he left the garage door open heard his front door slam went upstairs to check on his wife and found her bleeding 3 615 625 His wife later found letters written by Serravo admitting to the stabbing confronted him and he explained that God told him to sever their marriage by stabbing her and called police who arrested and charged him 3 616 Serravo s attorney raised the insanity defense 3 616 The prosecution forensic psychiatrist found Serravo sane because while he believed his act was justified and so was not morally wrong because of a delusional system he was aware his act was contrary to law 3 616 17 One defense psychiatrist found that Serravo may have been able to tell what was or was not legally wrong but his delusion made it impossible to tell moral right from wrong 3 618 Other defense psychiatrists found that his delusions made him unable to tell right from wrong in accordance with standards of society 3 618 The question on appeal was whether incapable of distinguishing right from wrong refers to distinguishing between moral right and moral wrong vs being able to distinguish what is legal from what is not legal 3 615 References edit The Immutable Command Meets the Unknowable Mind Deific Decree Claims and the Insanity Defense after People v Serravo ME Clark Denv UL Rev 1992 Conceptual Ambiguities in the Insanity Defense State v Wilson and the New Wrongfulness Standard BV Ranade Conn L Rev 1997 a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Criminal Law Cases and Materials 7th ed 2012 Wolters Kluwer Law amp Business John Kaplan Robert Weisberg Guyora Binder ISBN 978 1 4548 0698 1 1 People v Serravo 823 P 2d 128 CO Supreme Court 1992 01 13 External links editText of People v Serravo is available from CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Leagle vLex Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title People v Serravo amp oldid 1175148361, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,