Table 2

Using Dissociative Identity Disorder* as a Basis for Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity

CaseYearChargeDefenseCourt Ruling
State v. Milligan241978RapeNGRI-MPDLack of an integrated personality meant the defendant was not culpable
State v. Darnall251980MurderNGRI-MPDMultiple personalities do not preclude criminal responsibility
State v. Grimsley261982Drunken drivingNGRI-MPD; primary personality had no control over the “alter”State of consciousness or personality of defendant is immaterial
Kirkland v. State271983Bank robberyNGRI-psychogenic fugueLaw does not inquire about other personalities, fugue states, or moods in cases of criminal liability
State v. Jones281988MurderNGRI-MPDAlter personalities will not be an excuse for inability to distinguish right from wrong
State v. Greene291998MurderNGRI - DID; primary personality was “unconscious”Evidence of DID, including expert testimony, was not admissible because it did not meet reliability standards
State v. Lockhart302000Sexual assaultNGRI-DIDDID was not allowed into evidence by the West Virginia Court due to lack of scientific evidence
  • * Dissociative identity disorder formerly was referred to as multiple personality disorder.