What does the test for non-insane automatism require according to O'Brien v. Parker (1997)?

In O'Brien v. Parker (1997), the test for non-insane automatism indeed requires a total destruction of voluntary control. This concept focuses on situations where an individual, due to external factors such as a medical condition or extreme psychological distress, is unable to exercise any control over their actions. In cases of non-insane automatism, the law recognizes that the individual did not have the ability to choose their conduct at the time of the incident, which is key in determining criminal responsibility.

Understanding this requirement is crucial. It sets apart non-insane automatism from other defenses, such as insanity, which involves an inability to understand the nature of an act or its wrongfulness due to a mental disorder. In contrast, non-insane automatism implies a complete lack of control rather than a malfunctioning understanding of one’s actions. This distinction is fundamental for assessing culpability in criminal law, helping to determine when an individual should bear legal responsibility for their actions or when they should be excused due to the involuntary nature of the act.