What is the test for a jury to determine whether a defendant was legally insane at the time of the crime?

portions of the instruction indicated to the jury that it could consider all relevant evidence of insanity. The jury was instructed: "You may find that at times the Defendant was legally sane, and at other times was legally insane. You must determine whether he was legally insane when he committed the crime." Thus, the instruction informed the jury that it could consider evidence that defendant was legally insane "at other times," including after the crime, to infer that he was insane when he committed the crime. Moreover, the jury was also instructed that "[i]f after considering all the evidence, all 12 of you conclude that the Defendant has proved that it is more likely than not that he was legally insane when he committed the crime, you must return a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity." (See CALCRIM No. 3450, italics added.) Thus, the jury was instructed that it could consider all the evidence presented at trial. As the parties agree, most of the evidence of defendant's sanity and insanity involved his behavior and statements that were made after committing the crime. In viewing the instruction as a whole and based on this record, it is not reasonably likely that the jury applied the instruction in an erroneous manner. (People v. Houston (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1186, 1229.)

Defendant argues that the trial court's denial of his request to exclude reference to possible outpatient treatment was error.