State v. Wilson, 242 Conn. 605, 700 A.2d 633 (1997)

Wilson killed a man believing that the victim was a mastermind of a large organization designed to control the minds of people worldwide, including his own. The court said that the legislature had purposely decided not to limit the insanity test to legal wrongfulness by rejecting the word "criminality" in favor of the word "wrongfulness" when it adopted the Model Code formulation of the insanity test.g

In Wilson, for example, the Connecticut Supreme Court said that a defendant is legally insane if, as a result of mental disease, "he substantially misperceived reality and harbored a delusional belief that society, under the circumstances as the defendant honestly but mistakenly perceived them to be, would not have morally condemned his actions."

Review the following excerpt text that explains the standard for the legal definition of insanity from theWilsoncase (a modification of the Model Penal Code standard):

A defendant is legally insane if, as a result of mental disease "he substantially misperceived reality and harbored a delusional belief that society, under the circumstances as the defendant honestly but mistakenly perceived them to be, would not have morally condemned his actions."

Should the defendant be found not guilty by reason of insanity? Why or why not? If there are additional facts you would like to know about the case to make your arguments, please include them in your post.