In a jurisdiction that uses the M’Naughten test, Ira would be convicted. Not all of the elements were satisfied for this defense to be successful. The doctor testified that Ira clearly was suffering from a defect of reason and had a disease of the mind (Hall, 2014). However, his brain tumor alone, fails to satisfy the elements of knowing what he did was wrong (Hall, 2014). The doctor testified to this point that Ira’s condition did not prevent him from knowing what he was doing and that it was wrong. Without that element, I feel the jury would have to convict Ira under the defense of the M’Naughten rule.

If the jurisdiction allowed for a defense of irresistible impulse, I believe the defendant would be found not guilty. The irresistible impulse test specifically allows for the defendant to have known what he or she was doing was wrong, but because of the disease of the mind, they cannot control their actions (Hall, 2014). The doctor’s testimony is …show more content…
The elements in the M’Naughten test and irresistible impulse test are well defined and fairly simple to apply in this scenario. The Code, however, can be a little trickier as there is more room to interpret the requirements. Still, the Code uses the word “or” in its language to define its elements. I believe that one word separates the difference from a jury reaching a guilty or not guilty verdict. The Code states in part “he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct OR to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law” (Hall, 2014, p. 263). Ira knew what he was doing was wrong, as evidenced by the doctors testimony. Under the Code, he could appreciate the criminality of his charges, but the Code also allows by itself to lack the capacity to follow the law (Hall, 2014). I believe the doctor demonstrates this through testimony and the jury would acquit