Nunez

This appeal concerns the M’Naghten insanity test (M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 10 Clark & Fin. 200, 210 [8 Eng. Rep. 718, 722]) and the Legislature’s proscription against multiple punishment as specified in Penal Code section 654. 1 This is an intersection that legal scholars may find interesting. If a defendant has been convicted of multiple offenses but was legally insane at the time of the offenses, how does a sentencing judge or an appellate court determine his “intent and objective” in setting a maximum period of potential confinement? Such a defendant is incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his act, or if he did know or understand, he cannot distinguish right from wrong. (See People v. Skinner (1985) 39 Cal.3d 765 [ 217 Cal.Rptr. 685 , 704 P.2d 752 ]; see also Clark v. Arizona (2006) 548 U.S. 735, 747 [ 165 L.Ed.2d 842, 858-859 , 126 S.Ct. 2709 ].) But such a defendant may still have an “intent and objective.” It is just a little more difficult to ascertain.

Section 654 jurisprudence speaks in terms of the “intent and objective of the actor.” (People v. Rodriguez (2009) 47 Cal.4th 501, 507 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 108 , 213 P.3d 647 ], italics…