2012 USSC case

hint: USSC case - 2012 - a State defines the insanity defense in the following way - Case One: The defendant, due to insanity, believes that the victim is a lion.  He shoots and kills the victim. Case Two: The defendant, due to insanity, believes that a lion, a supernatural figure, has ordered him to kill the victim. In Case One, the defendant does not know he has killed a human being, and his insanity negates a mental element necessary to commit the crime.

In Case Two, the defendant has intentionally killed a victim whom he knows is a human being; he possesses the necessary mens rea. In both cases the defendant is unable, due to insanity, to appreciate the true quality of his act, and therefore unable to perceive that it is wrong. But in this state, the defendant in Case One could defend the charge by arguing that he lacked the mens rea, whereas the defendant in Case Two would not be able to raise a defense based on his mental illness. Much the same outcome seems likely to occur in other States that have modified the insanity defense in similar ways.

Once you find the case, answer the following questions:

1. Name and complete citation of the case
2. Name of State in this case
3. Define the modified insanity defense

4. who won the case (name of the party), and why
5. The rule of the case which the court applied to resolve the dispute in this case.

Post your work under etudes.