What is the test for an insanity defense in a murder case?

"[A] criminal defendant may be precluded, through the grant of a directed verdict, from presenting an insanity defense where the evidence is insufficient for a reasonable jury to find the defendant was insane at the time of his crimes." (People v. Severance (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 305, 317.) The defendant has the burden of establishing insanity, and if he fails to meet that burden, removal of the insanity issue from the jury does not

Page 9

violate the state or federal Constitution. (People v. Ceja (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1089.)

In reviewing whether a trial court's removal of the insanity issue from the jury is proper, the reviewing court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, and drawing every legitimate inference in his favor, determines whether there was substantial evidence from which reasonable jurors could have concluded that the defendant was insane at the time he committed the charged offense. (People v. Hernandez (2000) 22 Cal.4th 512, 527.)

In this case, the trial court ruled as follows: "The [People rely] on the analysis of the two delusions [in People v. Skinner], that is if the delusion is that another is about to take the defendant's life and the defendant acts in self-defense, an insanity defense will prevail. But if the delusion is that the victim slandered the defendant and the latter kills in revenge, it will not. [] The delusion first suggested results in an inability to appreciate that the act is wrong. The second delusion, without more, does not suggest that the defendant believes his act is lawfully or morally justified. That is, the actions to protect versus the action for revenge. [] And then it seems to me that when you take that standard, and you look at what transpired during the course of the two separate incidents, that is he goes to the home of the victim, essentially ambushes the victim, and he states that when he goes to the victim's home on the first day, he has the watch cap with the holes cut out, he has gloves or mittens of some type, and then you couple that with the second time he goes a week later to finish the job, and again he has the watch cap and the gloves. You couple that with the fact that he semi cased out the house; that is, he drove by a couple times and saw the light patterns in the home; coupling that with the phony statement as to what he was doing in the area, coupling that with his recitation of the events of the evening, it seems to me that all of the evidence is that he was sane and that the opinions--the opinion that he was insane is unsupported by any facts in the record, other than a theory of insanity brought on by substance abuse which is barred by section 25.5."

Page 10