State v. Crenshaw,

98 Wash. 2d 789, 659 P.2d 488 (1983)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D and his wife were on their honeymoon in Canada. D was deported as a result of his participation in a brawl. He got a motel room in Blaine, Washington, and waited for his wife to join him. When she arrived 2 days later, he immediately thought she had been unfaithful. D took her to the motel room and beat her unconscious. He then went to a nearby store, stole a knife, and returned to stab his wife 24 times. D left and drove to a nearby farm where he had been employed and borrowed an ax. Upon returning to the motel room, he decapitated his wife with such force that the ax marks cut into the concrete floor under the carpet and splattered blood throughout the room. D concealed his actions. D removed the body and borrowed a bucket and sponge from a nearby service station, and cleaned the room of blood and fingerprints. D then spoke with the motel manager about a phone bill, then chatted with him for a while over a beer. D then drove 25 miles and hid the two parts in thick brush. D then drove 200 miles Hoquiam. D picked up two hitchhikers, told them of his crime, and enlisted their aid in disposing of his wife's car in a river. The hitchhikers contacted the police and D was apprehended shortly thereafter. He voluntarily confessed to the crime. D pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. D testified that he followed the Moscovite religious faith and that it would be improper for a Moscovite not to kill his wife if she committed adultery. D has a history of mental problems, for which he has been hospitalized in the past. The trial court instructed: 'For a defendant to be found not guilty by reason of insanity you must find that, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant's mind was affected to such an extent that the defendant was unable to perceive the nature and quality of the acts with which the defendant is charged or was unable to tell right from wrong with reference to the particular acts with which defendant is charged. What is meant by the terms 'right and wrong' refers to knowledge of a person at the time of committing an act that he was acting contrary to the law.' The jury found him guilty of murder in the first degree.