Miller V. Statesupreme Court Case Study

Miller v. StateSupreme Court of Nevada, 1996991 P. 2d 1183People in the United States commit crimes and make up excuses why they should not be held accountable for a crime. Insanity and temporary Insanity have significant differences. One might ask themselves is there really any meaningful difference? During the history of our court system there has been many significant court decisions which address the controversy topics of insanity and temporary insanity as it relates to criminal procedures. One of the most significant court decision is Miller Vs State Supreme Court of Nevada, 1996 991 P.2d 1183.

FactsOn May 8, 1993, hearing a commotion, Officer Maria Jordan went to an upstairs neighbors apartment; when John K. Miller opened the door she
Maria Jordan, an officer on the Las Vegas police force, lived directly below Goring and Millers apartment. She heard loud noises in the apartment above her and went up to investigate. Miller opened the door and stated something to the effect that I blew it or I lost it. Miller stated that he did not deserve to be treated nicely. Miller was informed of his Miranda rights and proceeded to volunteer incriminating statements. Miller stated, I lost control and I just picked her up, and Im sorry. I dont want to live anymore. Shoot me (Schmalleger, 2002).

At the trial Millers sister, Annie Pedro, testified that on one occasion, Miller hit their brother ten times in an outburst that ended as abruptly as it began. Afterwards, Miller was very apologetic. Pedro stated that on another occasion, Miller struck her several times and immediately apologized, not knowing why he had hit her. Millers father testified that Miller had no memory of attacking Goring and that there were numerous things his son did not remember (Schmalleger,
Three medical experts concluded that Miller satisfied the MNaughten insanity test during the period in which he stabbed Goring. The test for insanity had been used in Nevada since 1889. State v. Lewis, 20 Nev.333, 22 P.241 (1889). The defense used the MNaughten test to show that the defendant did not understand his actions and could not tell the difference between right and wrong. During the close of evidence in the trial the district court instructed the jury to determine if Miller was legally insane when he killed