What is the legal test for moral obligation in the context of the insanity defense?

As the court noted in People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529, overruled on another ground in Price v. Superior Court (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1046, 1069, fn. 13 "The morality contemplated [by the statute defining the insanity defense] is, as the prosecutor argued here, not simply the individual's belief in what conduct is or is not good. While it need not reflect the principles of a recognized religion and does not demand belief in a God or other supreme being, it does require a sincerely held belief grounded in generally accepted ethical or moral principles derived from an external source. `[M]oral obligation in the context of the insanity defense means generally accepted moral standards and not those standards peculiar to the accused. [Citation.]'" (Id. at p. 608.)

The court's modification of the instruction was a succinct and correct statement of the law.

3. CALCRIM No. 3450 is a correct statement of the law.