Also known as:emotionally insane · irresistible impulse
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An asserted form of insanity arising from intense emotional excitement or passion that produces a temporary derangement of intellect even though reasoning faculties otherwise remain intact. It is traditionally distinguished from insanity caused by mental disease or defect and is often insufficient by itself to support an acquittal under either cognitive or volitional tests for insanity.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Gradual Urge After Brain Injury
Esther Eisenberg, who had a documented traumatic brain injury linked to impulse dysregulation, felt a mounting urge over weeks to strike a subcontractor who questioned her instructions. She selected a metal pipe in advance and swung it after the subcontractor refused to follow her plan. Esther claimed the urge had built gradually until she could not stop herself. Under the traditional irresistible impulse test, her claim of emotional insanity fails because the evidence of advance planning shows retained capacity to control her actions.
Delusional Release of Livestock
Enzo Eastwood spent days fixating on the belief that neighboring livestock were government drones due to his PTSD. He deliberately cut fences at night to release the animals onto a highway, injuring a motorist. Enzo stated he knew the act was legally wrong but felt an overpowering force compelled him. His emotional insanity claim does not support acquittal under the Durham rule because the calculated choice of time and place shows the conduct was not solely the product of mental disease.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Common Law
Casebooks
Dictionaries
Durham v. United States214 F.2d 862, 874–75 (D.C.Cir.1954)
Inability to Control Sexual Urges
Elliot Edmonds testified that stress triggered an uncontrollable urge to molest children, which he could not resist despite knowing the acts were wrong. The state sought civil commitment after his release from prison. The court upheld confinement because emotional insanity arising from a specific inability to control impulses qualifies as the kind of abnormality that permits continued detention without violating due process.
Kansas v. Hendricks521 U.S. 346 (1997)
Post-Acquittal Detention Challenge
Eva Espinosa was acquitted by reason of insanity after an assault and remained confined because she continued to exhibit dangerous behavior linked to her condition. She argued that her emotional excitement at the time of the offense had subsided. Continued detention is permissible because the original finding of insanity based on lack of control supports ongoing commitment until she proves she is no longer dangerous.
Foucha v. Louisiana504 U.S. 71 (1992)
Burden of Proving Insanity
Ella Emerson was charged with murder after killing her spouse during a sudden emotional outburst. She raised emotional insanity but the state required her to prove the defense beyond a reasonable doubt. The conviction is upheld because placing the burden on the defendant to establish lack of control due to emotional insanity does not violate due process when the state has already proved the elements of the crime.
Leland v. Oregon343 U.S. 790, 72 S.Ct. 1002, 96 L.Ed. 1302 (1952)
Racial Animus and Impulse Claim
Eugene Ellsworth shot a man after an argument he attributed to mounting racial resentment that he claimed overwhelmed his self-control. He sought acquittal on grounds of emotional insanity. The claim fails because emotional excitement traceable to moral or social attitudes rather than a recognized mental disease does not satisfy the volitional prong of the irresistible impulse test.
United States v. Alexander471 F.2d 923 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
Does emotional insanity qualify as a defense under the traditional irresistible impulse test?+
Emotional insanity does not automatically qualify. The test requires that mental illness produce an inability to control conduct or conform to the law. Pure emotional excitement or unbridled passion without a qualifying mental disease is insufficient even in jurisdictions that recognize the volitional test.
Supporting sources
How does emotional insanity differ from insanity caused by mental disease under M'Naghten?+
Emotional insanity is attributed to moral depravity or temporary passion rather than a disease of the mind that produces a defect in reasoning. Under M'Naghten a defendant must show a disease of the mind caused inability to know the nature or wrongfulness of the act. Emotional excitement alone does not satisfy that requirement.
Supporting sources
Can a gradual buildup of emotional pressure support an irresistible impulse claim?+
A gradual buildup can support the claim if the mental illness ultimately deprives the defendant of the ability to control conduct. The traditional test expressly recognizes that lack of control need not arise suddenly and may develop or exist over time.
Supporting sources
Is evidence of planning inconsistent with an emotional insanity defense?+
Yes. Deliberate selection of a weapon, choice of timing to avoid detection, or other advance planning demonstrates retained capacity to control conduct and therefore defeats a claim that emotional insanity rendered the defendant unable to conform behavior to the law.
Supporting sources
343 U.S. 790, 72 S. Ct. 1002, 96 L. Ed. 1302 (1952)Criminal Law
…statute amounts to no more than a legislative adoption of the “right and wrong” test of legal insanity in preference to the “irresistible impulse” test.[^maj-15] Knowledge of right and wrong is the exclusive test of criminal responsibility in a majority of American jurisdictions.[^maj-16] The science of psychiatry has made tremendous…