LEGAL PRINCIPLE: CRIMINAL LAW — Defences — Insanity — Burden and Standard of Proof of Insanity
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
An accused who pleads insanity has the burden of proving he was suffering from insanity at the time of the offence. The burden is on the balance of probability or preponderance of evidence, not beyond reasonable doubt.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
Per Edozie, JSC, in Guobadia v. State (2004) NLC-2952002(SC) at pp. 4–5; Paras E–A.
"Therefore, an accused person who pleads insanity as a defence to an offence with which he is charged has the burden of proving that he was suffering from insanity or insane delusion at the time the offence with which he was charged was committed. The burden of proof on the accused is on the balance of probability or preponderance of evidence and not on the basis of proof beyond reasonable doubt: see Daniel Madjemu v. State (2001) 9 NWLR (Pt. 718) 349."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
The accused bears the burden to prove insanity on the balance of probabilities. The principle applies to criminal law. The standard is civil, not criminal. The rule reflects the presumption of sanity. The prosecution does not need to disprove insanity. The principle is well-established.