No Fear Cavalier: Jesse Matthew & the Insanity Defense in Virginia

If you’ve been following the news recently, it’s been hard to avoid storied about Jesse Matthew, who allegedly (1) kidnapped and killed UVA student Hannah Graham,  (2)possibly did the same to Virginia Tech student Morgan Harrington, and (3) committed abduction, sexual assault, and attempted murder in 2005. Matthew has been indicted in connection with his alleged crimes in 2005, and, according to an article on newsplex.com,

Jim Camblos—Jesse Matthew’s attorney—has asked a judge for a mental evaluation of Matthew. According to longtime forensic psychologist Jeffery Fracher, the probability of an insanity plea actually holding in court is slim, since Virginia has strict guidelines for labeling a defendant as legally insane.

So, what are the exact rules regarding the insanity defense in Virginia?

First, “‘[I]nsanity is an affirmative defense that the defendant must establish’ by a preponderance of the evidence.” Whit v. Commonwealth, 616 S.E.2d 49, 52 (Va.App. 2005). In other words, Matthew would have to prove that it is more likely than not (i.e., 50.1% likely) he was suffering from criminal insanity.

Second, “Virginia law recognizes two tests by which an accused can establish criminal insanity, the M’Naghten Rule and the irresistible impulse doctrine. The irresistible impulse defense is available when ‘the accused’s mind has become ‘so impaired by disease that he is totally deprived of the mental power to control or restrain his act.”” Bennett v. Commonwealth, 511 S.E.2d 439, 446-47 (Va.App. 1999).

This irresistible impulse test would be pretty tough for Matthew to prove. Why? “Evidence that an accused planned his or her criminal acts precludes, as a matter of law, any finding that the accused acted under an irresistible impulse.” Id. at 447. Given the allegations against Matthew, it certainly seems as if he planned his abductions, meaning that irresistible impulse seems unlikely.

But “[e]vidence of planning does not, however, preclude a finding of insanity under the M’Naghten Rule.” So, how would Matthew establish criminal insanity under the M’Naghten Rule? “Under the M’Naghten Rule, an accused is insane if he or she did not understand the nature, character, and consequences of his or her act, or was unable to distinguish right from wrong.” Can Matthew satisfy this Rule? I haven’t seen anything in the news to indicate that this defense is potentially viable for Matthew. But we’ll have to see if anything else emerges.

-CM