The AP has a brief rundown on the facts of Sanders v. State, but the legal rubber met the judicial road on the issue of insanity -- in particular, whether the defendant had adequately proven his innocence by reason of insanity. For Judge Ishee, joined in dissent by Chief Judge King and Judge Barnes, the elephant in the room is the fact that the jury inquired of the trial judge during its deliberations as to whether an insanity finding could result eventually in Sanders' release into free society. Judge Ishee empathizes with the question, but as he rightly points out, that's not a valid piece of the insanity inquiry and strongly indicates that the jurors reached their decision without full reliance on the case's facts.

For its part, the majority points out that the jury's question, standing alone, doesn't prove that they based their verdict out of fear rather than fact. Such a conclusion, Judge Roberts' majority opinion contends, necessarily requires speculation.

It's a tough case, but if nothing else, it's a good refresher on the M'Naughton rule.