Home Table of Contents

WPIC 20.05 Insanity—Irresistible Impulse

11 WAPRAC WPIC 20.05Washington Practice Series TMWashington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal

11 Wash. Prac., Pattern Jury Instr. Crim. WPIC 20.05 (5th Ed)
Washington Practice Series TM
Washington Pattern Jury Instructions--Criminal
January 2024 Update
Washington State Supreme Court Committee on Jury Instructions
Part IV. Defenses
WPIC CHAPTER 20. Insanity
WPIC 20.05 Insanity—Irresistible Impulse
No instruction is set forth.
Irresistible impulse is not a defense. Irresistible impulse, except as it may fit within the confines of the M'Naghten Rule, is not recognized as a defense by the case law of Washington. State v. Vidal, 82 Wn.2d 74, 508 P.2d 158 (1973); State v. Cogswell, 54 Wn.2d 240, 339 P.2d 465 (1959); State v. Maish, 29 Wn.2d 52, 185 P.2d 486 (1947). The two concepts are different; irresistible impulse focuses on a defendant's volition, while the insanity defense relates instead to cognition. See State v. Odell, 38 Wn.2d 4, 22, 227 P.2d 710 (1951) (quoting a trial court instruction with apparent approval); State v. Maish, 29 Wn.2d at 56.
Instruction on unavailability of defense may be given under certain circumstances. An instruction on irresistible impulse is proper if the concept of irresistible impulse is introduced at trial, State v. Ferrick, 81 Wn.2d 942, 944, 506 P.2d 860 (1973), or when there is testimony using terms closely related to the concept, such as “control system” and “ability to control,” even when the defendant does not specifically assert that defense. State v. Vidal, 82 Wn.2d at 79; State v. Cogswell, 54 Wn.2d at 247–48; State v. Odell, 38 Wn.2d 4, 22–24, 227 P.2d 710 (1951); State v. Ratow, 4 Wn.App. 321, 327, 481 P.2d 20 (1971).
See also Fine, 13B Washington Practice, Criminal Law and Sentencing §§ 39:3, 39:7 (3d ed.).
[Current as of February 2019.]
End of Document