N.C.P.I.—Crim. 304.10

NOTE WELL: Give this instruction only when there is

some evidence that the defendant may have been

legally insane when the offense was committed.1

Also add the following at the end of the verdict form: "Special

Issue: Did you find the defendant not guilty because you were satisfied

that he was insane?

ANSWER: ___________________"

Give the following just before the mandate of the instruction on the

offense charged:

When there is evidence which tends to show that the defendant

was legally insane at the time of the alleged offense, you will consider

this evidence only if you find that the State has proved beyond a

reasonable doubt each of the things about which I have already

instructed you. Even if the State does prove each of these things beyond

a reasonable doubt, the defendant would nevertheless be not guilty if he

was legally insane at the time of the alleged offense.2

I instruct you that sanity or soundness of mind is the natural and

normal condition of people. Therefore, everyone is presumed sane until

the contrary is made to appear.

The test of insanity as a defense is whether the defendant, at the

time of the alleged offense, was laboring under such a defect of reason,

from disease or deficiency of the mind, as to be incapable of knowing the

nature and quality of the act or, if the defendant did know this, whether

the defendant was, by reason of such defect of reason, incapable of

distinguishing between right and wrong in relation to that act.3 This

defense consists of two things. First, the defendant must have been

suffering from a disease or defect of the defendant’s mind at the time of

the alleged offense. Second, this disease or defect must have so

impaired the defendant’s mental capacity that the defendant either did

not know the nature and quality of the act as the defendant was

committing it, or, if the defendant did, that the defendant did not know

that this act was wrong. (On the other hand, it need not be shown that

the defendant lacked mental capacity with respect to all matters. A

person may be sane on every subject but one, and yet if the defendant’s

mental disease or defect with respect to that one subject renders the

defendant unable to know the nature and quality of the act or to know

that the act with which the defendant was charged was wrong, the

defendant’s is not guilty by reason of insanity.)

Since sanity or soundness of mind is the natural and normal

condition of people, everyone is presumed to be sane until the contrary is

made to appear.4 This means that the defendant has the burden of proof

on the issue of insanity. However, unlike the State, which must prove all

the other elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the

defendant need only prove the defendant’s insanity to your satisfaction.5

That is, the evidence taken as a whole must satisfy you, not beyond a

reasonable doubt but simply to your satisfaction, that the defendant was

insane at the time of the alleged offense. In making this determination,

you must consider all of the evidence before you which has any tendency

to throw any light on the mental condition of the defendant, including

(lay testimony reciting irrational or rational behavior of the defendant

before, during, or after the alleged offense), (opinion evidence by [lay]

(and) [expert] witnesses), (evidence of court orders declaring the

defendant mentally incapacitated), (other evidence admitted).6 None of

these things is conclusive, but all are circumstances to be considered by

you in reaching your decision. If you are not satisfied as to the insanity

of the defendant, the defendant is presumed to be sane and you would

find the defendant guilty.7

NOTE WELL: Incorporate instructions on insanity into

the mandate of the instruction on the offense charged,

as follows:

(1) Each time you come to the phrase, ". . . , it would

be your duty to return a verdict of guilty of (the offense

charged or a lesser included offense)", add the phrase,

"..., unless you are satisfied that the defendant was

insane at that time."8

(2) At the end of the mandate, insert the following as

the final sentence: "It would be your duty to return a

verdict of not guilty if you are satisfied by the evidence

that the defendant was suffering from a [disease]

[defect] of the mind at the time of the alleged act and

that this [disease] [defect] so impaired the defendant’s

mental capacity that the defendant either did not know

the nature and quality of the act as the defendant was

committing it, or if he did, that the defendant did not

know that this act was wrong."

NOTE WELL: Concluding Instruction and Verdict Form.

Insert the following language in N.C.P.I.-Crim. 101.35,

on page 2, before the first "NOTE WELL".

"If you return a verdict of guilty, you will not answer the special

issue on the verdict form. If you find the defendant not guilty for any

reason, you will return a verdict of not guilty and will so indicate on the

form. If you return a verdict of not guilty, you must also answer the

special issue, which asks whether you found the defendant not guilty

because you were satisfied that the defendant was insane. If you found

the defendant not guilty because you were satisfied that the defendant

was insane, answer, "Yes"; if you were not so satisfied, answer "No."9

Your decision on this issue as on all issues must be unanimous."

INSTRUCTIONS ON COMMITMENT PROCEDURE

NOTE WELL: Upon request, a defendant who

interposes a defense of insanity is entitled to an

instruction setting out in substance the commitment

procedures now provided for in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-

1321 and § 15A-1322. S v. Hammonds, 290 N.C. 1, 15

(1976); see also, S v. Bundridge, 294 N.C. 45, 53-54

(1978).

A defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity shall

immediately be committed to a State mental facility.10 After the

defendant has been automatically committed, the defendant shall be

provided a hearing within 50 days.11 At this hearing the defendant shall

have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the

defendant no longer has a mental illness or is no longer dangerous to

others.12 If the court is so satisfied, it shall order the defendant

discharged and released. If the court finds that the defendant has not

met the defendant’s burden of proof, then it shall order that inpatient

commitment continue for a period not to exceed 90 days. This

involuntary commitment will continue, subject to periodic review, until

the court finds that the defendant no longer has a mental illness or is no

longer dangerous to others.