K.S.A. § 21-5209 is not fair under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

KSA § 21-5209. It shall be a defense to a prosecution under any statute that the defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacked the culpable mental state required as an element of the crime charged. Mental disease or defect is not otherwise a defense.

In State v. Mclinn where the defendant claimed a multiple personality disorder, the prosecution presented the defendant’s force of knife cuts to Harold Sasko’s neck as relevant to her intention of killing him. As mental defect or disease is otherwise not a defense Sarah McLinn was unable to introduce evidence to work with her diagnosis, was found guilty and sentenced to the Hard 50. 

“Lawrence police had gathered evidence that Sasko abused McLinn, but District Judge Paula Martin blocked the jury from hearing about the abuse after prosecutor Charles Branson argued that it was ‘irrelevant information.’ McLinn was on trial, he said, not Sasko.” Kansas Reflector, May 23, 2024

“There is a major limitation on the defendant’s ability to introduce evidence corroborating or showing the existence of a mental disease or defect. Such evidence is only admissible as it specifically relates to the requisite mens rea of the offense. Therefore, the defense cannot introduce evidence as to the existence of a mental disease or defect to litigate the defendant’s mental condition in general.” Marc Rosen, Insanity Denied: Abolition of the Insanity Defense in Kansas, 8 KAN. J.L. & PUB. POL’y 253 (1998).

This evidence might touch on why the offense occurred. 

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment promises that before depriving a person of life, liberty or property, the government must follow fair procedures. Thus, it is not always enough for the government just to act in accordance with whatever law there may happen to be.

Published in The Eagle and The Star 5.11.25…

Daniel M’Naghten was an Englishman who suffered from paranoid delusions and thought the Tories were going to kill him. He murdered Edward Drummond, the British prime minister’s secretary, and was acquitted under an insanity defense later codified in the House of Lords in 1843. This insanity defense became common law and is known as the M’Naghten Rule: a two-prong test with the first prong determining whether the defendant knew what they were doing, and the second prong determining whether the defendant knew what they were doing was wrong.

Kansas adopted the M’Naghten Rule in 1884. There was an assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in 1981. John Hinckley Jr. was found not guilty by reason of insanity in 1982. Kansas legislators abolished the M’Naghten Rule in 1996.

Public opinion abolished the M’Naghten Rule, as noted in a series of pre-Hinckley surveys summed up by lawyer Brian Hauptman: Large majorities of law enforcement, mental health professionals and the community at large agreed with the statement: “Too many people escape responsibility for crimes by pleading insanity.” Hinckley’s acquittal buttressed that sentiment.

Hinckley was cleared by the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code, which has an “Irresistible Impulse Test,” and is broader than the M’Naghten Rule, which was used in only 33 in recorded court cases before its demise, according to our Kansas Supreme Court Library.

Kansas lawmakers wrote a narrow “mens rea” or criminal intent approach to determine the guilty mind: Statute 21-5209: Defense of lack of mental state. It shall be a defense to a prosecution under any statute that the defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacked the culpable mental state required as an element of the crime charged. Mental disease or defect is not otherwise a defense. Statute 21-5202: Culpable mental state; definition of intentionally, knowingly, recklessly. (a) Except as otherwise provided, a culpable mental state is an essential element of every crime defined by this code. A culpable mental state may be established by proof that the conduct of the accused person was committed “intentionally,” “knowingly” or “recklessly.”

For example, in State v. Mclinn, a 2018 case where defendant Sarah Gonzales-McLinn submitted a dissociative identity disorder diagnosis, the prosecution presented her force of knife cuts to Harold Sasko’s neck as relevant to her intention (mens rea) of killing him. As mental disease or defect is not otherwise a defense, Gonzales-McLinn was unable to enter evidence about her diagnosis, and was found guilty and sentenced to a “hard 50” sentence. It was later found that she could have used a battered woman’s defense, and her sentence was reduced to 25 years.

According to the Kansas Department of Corrections’ 2023 annual report, 46% of our adult inmate population suffers from mental illness, with 9% of the cases classified as severe and persistent. But public perception of individuals with mental illness in our justice system is evolving.

Stepping Up is a national effort aimed at reducing the number of incarcerated people with mental illness and was founded by the Council of State Governments Justice Center, the National Association of Counties and the American Psychiatric Association Foundation. Already, 20 Kansas counties are participating, including Sedgwick, Johnson and Wyandotte.

From his dissent in Kahler v. Kansas, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer wrote: “Few doctrines are as deeply rooted in our common-law heritage as the insanity defense. Although English and early American sources differ in their linguistic formulations of the legal test for insanity, with striking consistency, they all express the same underlying idea: A defendant who, due to mental illness, lacks sufficient mental capacity to be held morally responsible for his actions cannot be found guilty of a crime.”

For my peers with mental illness going through criminal court proceedings, it’s time to give them a voice. It’s time to let them use their diagnosis in their defense. It’s time to restore the M’Naghten Rule in Kansas.

Why the M’Naghten Rule?

Back in 2010 I walked out of a job I loved because I couldn’t trust myself anymore. I was a surgical technologist working at a level 3 trauma hospital and saw things that broke my mind. My kids were frightened of me and moved in with my parents. The state got involved and their father and I were pulled into court for a Child In Need of Care case. With my mental health deteriorated, I was terrified of the judge, but the Honorable Daniel Mitchell ordered me into a mental health evaluation which proved a multiple personality disorder and treatment immediately ensued.

Sadly, in the same month that the kids were returned to my custody, their father committed suicide.

Later in 2019, I learned that my peers with mental illness going through criminal court proceedings were not allowed to enter evidence with their diagnosis to work with their defense. They had no voice and were probably just as frightened as I was in family court. For them, it’s time to restore the M’Naghten Rule in Kansas.

Keri Strahler

Restoring an Insanity Defense

One of our gracious representatives gave me permission to work with a Revisor on drafting a new bill this session to restore an insanity defense in Kansas and I’m so grateful to Rep. Carmichael for this opportunity to advocate for my peers with mental illness going through criminal court proceedings. I’m introducing HB2692 into the House Judiciary Committee and hopefully, we’ll get a hearing on the bill. Cross your fingers ♥