Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,500+ case briefs...

State v. Wilson

Supreme Court of Connecticut
700 A.2d 633 (1997)



Wilson (defendant) was charged with the murder of Jack Peters. Wilson had attended high school with Jack Peters’ son, Dirk, and harbored a belief that Jack and Dirk were determined to destroy Wilson’s life. Wilson believed Dirk was the head of an organization that was determined to control the minds of others. Wilson believed that Dirk poisoned him, hypnotized him, and was responsible for a series of bad events in Wilson’s life, including the loss of his job, sexual incapacity, lack of strength, the deaths of his mother and family dogs, and his breakup with his girlfriend. For a period of several months in 1993, Wilson began warning the police that Jack and Dirk were conspiring to destroy peoples’ lives, including his own. He repeatedly asked the police to take action, but the police informed him there was no way to investigate such claims. In August 1993, Wilson went to Jack’s home and shot him to death. He then turned himself into the police, stating that he had no choice but to shoot him. At the murder trial, Wilson pleaded insanity. Several expert witnesses testified on Wilson’s behalf. One expert said that Wilson expressed remorse after the shooting but that he felt that the shooting was necessary to save others. Another expert testified that Wilson believed he had saved the world. A third expert said that Wilson felt he had a higher moral duty to kill Peters. Wilson requested jury instructions that defined the “wrongfulness” prong of the insanity test as a moral consideration. Under Wilson’s proposed test, a defendant could not be held criminally responsible if, by mental disease or defect, he believes his conduct is morally justifiable, even if he knows his conduct is against the law. The trial court rejected this definition.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Palmer, J.)

Concurrence (Katz, J.)

Dissent (McDonald, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 410,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,500 briefs, keyed to 223 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial