The 1993 Bobbitt case produced two Virginia criminal trials with two acquittals: Lorena Bobbitt was found not guilty by reason of insanity on a charge of aggravated malicious wounding, and John Wayne Bobbitt was acquitted of marital sexual assault. Neither served prison time.
The Charge Against Lorena Bobbitt
Virginia charged Lorena Bobbitt with aggravated malicious wounding. To convict, the Commonwealth had to prove she maliciously caused bodily injury with the intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill, and that the victim suffered a severe and permanent, significant physical impairment.1Virginia Code Commission. Virginia Code § 18.2-51.2
The offense is a Class 2 felony carrying a prison term of twenty years to life on conviction.2Virginia Code Commission. Virginia Code § 18.2-10 Prosecutors argued Lorena’s use of a kitchen knife and her flight from the scene showed a deliberate attempt to cause lasting physical damage.
The Charge Against John Wayne Bobbitt
John Wayne Bobbitt stood trial for marital sexual assault under Virginia’s rape statute, which reaches sexual intercourse accomplished against the victim’s will by force, threat, or intimidation. Virginia applies the standard regardless of whether the complaining witness is the accused’s spouse.3Virginia Code Commission. Virginia Code § 18.2-61
The defense argued the encounter was consensual. Under Virginia law, the Commonwealth does not have to prove the victim physically resisted or cried out to obtain a conviction.4Virginia Code Commission. Virginia Code § 18.2-67.6 The jury weighed the parties’ testimony against the reasonable-doubt standard.
The Irresistible Impulse Defense
Lorena Bobbitt’s defense turned on Virginia’s irresistible impulse doctrine, a form of insanity defense distinct from the M’Naghten rule. Where M’Naghten asks whether a defendant understood the nature of the act or knew right from wrong, the irresistible impulse doctrine asks whether a mental disease has stripped the defendant of the will to resist committing the act, even knowing it is wrong.5Justia. Thompson v. Commonwealth
Under Virginia’s formulation, the defense applies when:5Justia. Thompson v. Commonwealth
- The impulse is driven by and grows out of a mental disease.
- The disease affects the person’s willpower rather than just their understanding.
- The person is totally deprived of the mental power to control or restrain their actions.
- The person is unable to resist the impulse despite knowing the act is illegal.
Expert witnesses testified about Lorena Bobbitt’s mental state, describing a dissociative break triggered by alleged abuse. The theory placed the case squarely within the doctrine: a compromised will, not a lack of awareness.
Verdicts and What Followed
The jury returned not guilty by reason of insanity in Lorena Bobbitt’s trial. Virginia law then required her to be placed in temporary custody for a psychiatric evaluation, with a report due within 45 days; the court may authorize the evaluation on an outpatient basis or within a hospital facility.6Virginia Code Commission. Virginia Code § 19.2-182.2
John Wayne Bobbitt was acquitted. The Commonwealth failed to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt. Both proceedings ended without a prison sentence, closing the criminal chapter of the 1993 events.