Insanity Plea: Case Analysis of Mr. Wertz

The defendant in this case is Mr. Wertz, a 26-year-old Caucasian male. While visiting his relatives, Mr. Wertz woke up in the middle of the night and drove to a nearby ranch with his rifle. He opened fire at the ranch, and eleven shots were fired by the time the police came. The rancher’s wife was injured with a bullet wound to the leg. Mr. Wertz is charged with willfully discharging a firearm at an inhabited home in California. He pleads not guilty by reason of insanity. I believe that the defendant suffers from a diagnosable mental disorder. It is most likely that Mr. Wertz suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This disorder is generally associated with (i) direct exposure to an actual or threatened death, serious injury, or

Therefore, the M’Naghten test is the applicable legal standard to determine legal insanity (in this jurisdiction). The M’Naghten test asks the following three questions: Did the defendant suffer from a mental disorder at the time of the act? Did the defendant know the nature and quality of the act? Did the defendant know that the act was wrong? According to M’Naghten, insanity applies if the defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act, or did not know that the act was wrong, at the time of the act, due to a mental disorder. In regards to the first question, the defendant must suffer from a known psychological, mental disorder; this disorder must cause a defect in reasoning. If the defendant did not suffer from a mental disorder at the time of the act, then the defendant is not legally insane. Once it is known that there is a mental disorder, the second question to consider is whether or not the defendant knew the nature and quality of the act. The ‘nature’ of the act refers to the physical aspects of the offense, such as physically getting into the car and physically pressing onto the gas pedal to run someone over; the ‘quality’ refers to the potential harm (or outcome) that could occur from the offense, such as running someone over with a car would be to severely harm or even kill that person. The defendant must not know the nature and quality of

Wertz meets the M’Naghten standard for legal insanity in California. Based on the facts of the case, Mr. Wertz suffers from PTSD, which is a trauma-related mental disorder. It is very likely that the PTSD impaired the defendant as to cause the defendant to confuse his nightmare with that of reality. Thus, causing the defendant to commit the offense. The police officer reported that Mr. Wertz “seemed out of it” when he was questioned at the scene of the shooting and asked why the police officer stopped him from doing his job. Mr. Wertz believed he was simply doing his job as an active-Army soldier. This is reminiscent of Mr. Wertz’s recurring nightmare, which involved a scenario in which an enemy combatant continuously opens fire at him from within a building. This nightmare was a scene taken from his traumatic experience(s) during his second deployment, where he repeatedly faced mortar attacks from the enemy. Mr. Wertz believed he was simply doing his job by shooting at what he believed to be an enemy combatant. He did not know he was opening fire at a harmless ranch nor did he know he was shooting at innocent victims who he had never met before. As such, this impairment relates to the legal standard for insanity. Mr. Wertz satisfies the M’Naghten standard for legal insanity. He suffered from PTSD, at the time of the act. He seemed to not know the physical aspects and the potential harm of his act. Because of the PTSD, Mr. Wertz he did not know