§ 5-2-303. Mental disease, admissibility

Evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect is admissible to prove whether the defendant had the kind of culpable mental state required for commission of the offense charged.

§ 18-207. Mental condition not a defense--Provision for treatment during incarceration--Reception of evidence--Notice and appointment of expert examiners

(1) Mental condition shall not be a defense to any charge of criminal conduct.

(2) If by the provisions of section 19-2523, Idaho Code, the court finds that one convicted of crime suffers from any mental condition requiring treatment, such  person shall be committed to the board of correction or such city or county official as provided by law for placement in an appropriate facility for treatment, having regard for such conditions of security as the case may require. In the event a sentence of incarceration has been imposed, the defendant shall receive treatment in a facility which provides for incarceration or less restrictive confinement. In the event that a course of treatment thus commenced shall be concluded prior to the expiration of the sentence imposed, the offender shall remain liable for the remainder of such sentence, but shall have credit for time incarcerated for treatment.

(3) Nothing herein is intended to prevent the admission of expert evidence on the issue of any state of mind which is an element of the offense, subject to the rules of evidence.

(4) No court shall, over the objection of any party, receive the evidence of any expert witness on any issue of mental condition, or permit such evidence to be placed before a jury, unless such evidence is fully subject to the adversarial process in at least the following particulars:

(a) Notice must be given at least ninety (90) days in advance of trial, or such other period as justice may require, that a party intends to raise any issue of mental condition and to call expert witnesses concerning such issue, failing which such witness shall not be permitted to testify until such time as the opposing party has a complete opportunity to consider the substance of such testimony and prepare for rebuttal through such opposing expert(s) as the party  may choose.

(b) A party who expects to call an expert witness to testify on an issue of mental condition must, on a schedule to be set by the court, furnish to the opposing party a written synopsis of the findings of such expert, or a copy of a written report. The court may authorize the taking of depositions to inquire further into the substance of such reports or synopses.

(c) Raising an issue of mental condition in a criminal proceeding shall constitute a waiver of any privilege that might otherwise be interposed to bar the production of evidence on the subject and, upon request, the court shall order that the state's experts shall have access to the defendant in such cases for the purpose of having its own experts conduct an examination in preparation for any legal proceeding at which the defendant's mental condition may be in issue.

(d) The court is authorized to appoint at least one (1) expert at public expense upon a showing by an indigent defendant that there is a need to inquire into questions of the defendant's mental condition. The costs of examination shall be paid by the defendant if he is financially able. The determination of ability to  pay shall be made in accordance with chapter 8, title 19, Idaho Code.

(e) If an examination cannot be conducted by reason of the unwillingness of the defendant to cooperate, the examiner shall so advise the court in writing. In  such cases the court may deny the party refusing to cooperate the right to present evidence in support of a mental status claim unless the interest of justice requires otherwise and shall instruct the jury that it may consider the party's lack of cooperation for its effect on the credibility of the party's mental status claim.

§ 18-1-803. Impaired mental condition

(1) Evidence of an impaired mental condition, as defined in section 16-8-102(2.7), C.R.S., though not legal insanity may be offered in a proper case as bearing upon the capacity of the accused to form the culpable mental state which is an element of the offense charged.

(2) An intention to assert the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition shall be made pursuant to section 16-8-103.5, C.R.S.

(3) When the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition has been raised, the jury will be given special verdict forms containing interrogatories. The trier  of fact shall decide first the question of guilt as to felony charges which are before the court. If the trier of fact concludes that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt as to one or more of the felony charges submitted for consideration, the special interrogatories shall not be answered. Upon completion of its deliberations on the felony charges as previously set forth in this subsection (3), the trier of fact shall consider any other charges before the court in a similar manner; except that it shall not answer the special interrogatories regarding such charges if it has previously found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to one or more felony charges. The interrogatories shall provide for specific findings of the jury with respect to the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition in accordance with the Colorado rules of criminal procedure. When the court sits as the trier of fact, it shall enter appropriate specific findings with respect to the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition. If the trier of fact finds that the defendant is not guilty by reason of the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition, the court shall commit the defendant to the department of human services pursuant to section 16-8-103.5(5), C.R.S.

(4) This section shall apply to offenses committed before July 1, 1995.

§ 704-401. Evidence of physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect admissible when relevant to state of mind

Evidence that the defendant was affected by a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the defendant did or did not have a state of mind that is required to establish an element of the offense.

West's Annotated California Codes Currentness

Penal Code (Refs & Annos)

Part 1. Of Crimes and Punishments

Title 1. Of Persons Liable to Punishment for Crime

§ 25. Diminished capacity; insanity; evidence; amendment of section

(a) The defense of diminished capacity is hereby abolished. In a criminal action, as well as any juvenile court proceeding, evidence concerning an accused person's intoxication, trauma, mental illness, disease, or defect shall not be admissible to show or negate capacity to form the particular purpose, intent, motive, malice aforethought, knowledge, or other mental state required for the commission of the crime charged.

(b) In any criminal proceeding, including any juvenile court proceeding, in which a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is entered, this defense shall be found by the trier of fact only when the accused person proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.

(c) Notwithstanding the foregoing, evidence of diminished capacity or of a mental disorder may be considered by the court only at the time of sentencing or other disposition or commitment.

(d) The provisions of this section shall not be amended by the Legislature except by statute passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors.

CREDIT(S)

(Added by Initiative Measure, approved by the people, June 8, 1982.)

Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 20 of 2013 Reg.Sess, also including Chs. 27, 29, and 41.

West's Annotated California Codes Currentness

Penal Code (Refs & Annos)

Part 1. Of Crimes and Punishments

Title 1. Of Persons Liable to Punishment for Crime

§ 28. Evidence of mental disease, mental defect or mental disorder

(a) Evidence of mental disease, mental defect, or mental disorder shall not be admitted to show or negate the capacity to form any mental state, including, but not limited to, purpose, intent, knowledge, premeditation, deliberation, or malice aforethought, with which the accused committed the act. Evidence of mental disease, mental defect, or mental disorder is admissible solely on the issue of whether or not the accused actually formed a required specific intent, premeditated, deliberated, or harbored malice aforethought, when a specific intent crime is charged.

(b) As a matter of public policy there shall be no defense of diminished capacity, diminished responsibility, or irresistible impulse in a criminal action or juvenile adjudication hearing.

(c) This section shall not be applicable to an insanity hearing pursuant to Section 1026.

(d) Nothing in this section shall limit a court's discretion, pursuant to the Evidence Code, to exclude psychiatric or psychological evidence on whether the accused had a mental disease, mental defect, or mental disorder at the time of the alleged offense.

CREDIT(S)

(Added by Stats.1981, c. 404, p. 1592, § 4. Amended by Stats.1982, c. 893, p. 3318, § 3; Stats.1984, c. 1433, § 1; Stats.2001, c. 854 (S.B.205), § 18; Stats.2002, c. 784 (S.B.1316), § 528.)

Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 20 of 2013 Reg.Sess, also including Chs. 27, 29, and 41.

West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 29

Effective:[See Text Amendments]

West's Annotated California Codes Currentness

Penal Code (Refs & Annos)

Part 1. Of Crimes and Punishments

Title 1. Of Persons Liable to Punishment for Crime

§ 29. Mental state; restriction on expert testimony; determination by trier of fact

In the guilt phase of a criminal action, any expert testifying about a defendant's mental illness, mental disorder, or mental defect shall not testify as to whether the defendant had or did not have the required mental states, which include, but are not limited to, purpose, intent, knowledge, or malice aforethought, for the crimes charged. The question as to whether the defendant had or did not have the required mental states shall be decided by the trier of fact.

CREDIT(S)

(Added by Stats.1984, c. 1433, § 3.)

Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 20 of 2013 Reg.Sess, also including Chs. 27, 29, and 41.

West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 29.2

Formerly cited as CA PENAL § 21

Effective: January 1, 2013

West's Annotated California Codes Currentness

Penal Code (Refs & Annos)

Part 1. Of Crimes and Punishments

Title 1. Of Persons Liable to Punishment for Crime

§ 29.2. Manifestation of intent; evidence of lack of capacity or ability to control conduct

(a) The intent or intention is manifested by the circumstances connected with the offense.

(b) In the guilt phase of a criminal action or a juvenile adjudication hearing, evidence that the accused lacked the capacity or ability to control his or her conduct for any reason shall not be admissible on the issue of whether the accused actually had any mental state with respect to the commission of any crime. This subdivision is not applicable to Section 26.

CREDIT(S)

(Formerly § 21, enacted in 1872. Amended by Stats.1981, c. 404, p. 1591, § 1; Stats.1982, c. 893, § 1. Renumbered § 29.2 and amended by Stats.2012, c. 162 (S.B.1171), § 118.)

Current with urgency legislation through Ch. 20 of 2013 Reg.Sess, also including Chs. 27, 29, and 41.

New Jersey Statutes Annotated Currentness

Title 2C. The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice (Refs & Annos)

Subtitle 1. General Provisions

Chapter 4. Responsibility (Refs & Annos)

2C:4-2. Evidence of mental disease or defect admissible when relevant to element of the offense

Evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the defendant did not have a state of mind which is an element of the offense. In the absence of such evidence, it may be presumed that the defendant had no mental disease or defect which would negate a state of mind which is an element of the offense.

CREDIT(S)

L.1978, c. 95, § 2C:4-2, eff. Sept. 1, 1979. Amended by L.1979, c. 178, § 11B, eff. Sept. 1, 1979; L.1981, c. 290, § 8, eff. Sept. 24, 1981; L.1990, c. 63, § 1, eff. July 7, 1990.

Current with laws effective through L.2013, c. 50, 52-59 and J.R. No. 8.

N.J.S.A. 2C:4-3

Effective:[See Text Amendments]

New Jersey Statutes Annotated Currentness

Title 2C. The New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice (Refs & Annos)

Subtitle 1. General Provisions

Chapter 4. Responsibility (Refs & Annos)

2C:4-3. Requirement of notice

a. If a defendant intends to claim insanity pursuant to section 2C:4-1 or the absence of a requisite state of mind pursuant to section 2C:4-2, he shall serve notice of such intention upon the prosecuting attorney in accordance with the Rules of Court.

b. When a defendant is acquitted on the ground of insanity, the verdict and judgment shall so state.

CREDIT(S)

L.1978, c. 95, § 2C:4-3, eff. Sept. 1, 1979. Amended by L.1979, c. 178, § 12, eff. Sept. 1, 1979.

Current with laws effective through L.2013, c. 50, 52-59 and J.R. No. 8.

West's Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated Currentness

Title 18. Criminal Code (Refs & Annos)

Code of Alabama Currentness

Title 13A. Criminal Code. (Refs & Annos)

Chapter 3. Defenses.

Article 1. . Responsibility.

§ 13A-3-1. Mental disease or defect.

(a) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for any crime that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.

(b) “Severe mental disease or defect” does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.

(c) The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.

CREDIT(S)

(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, § 501; Acts 1988, No. 88-654, p. 1051, § 2.)

Current through Act 2013-172 of the 2013 Regular Session.

West's Utah Code Annotated Currentness

Title 76. Utah Criminal Code

Chapter 2. Principles of Criminal Responsibility (Refs & Annos)

Part 3. Defenses to Criminal Responsibility

§ 76-2-305. Mental illness--Use as a defense--Influence of alcohol or other substance voluntarily consumed--Definition

(1)(a) It is a defense to a prosecution under any statute or ordinance that the defendant, as a result of mental illness, lacked the mental state required as an element of the offense charged.

(b) Mental illness is not otherwise a defense, but may be evidence in mitigation of the penalty in a capital felony under Section 76-3-207 and may be evidence of special mitigation reducing the level of a criminal homicide or attempted criminal homicide offense under Section 76-5-205.5.

(2) The defense defined in this section includes the defenses known as “insanity” and “diminished mental capacity.”

(3) A person who asserts a defense of insanity or diminished mental capacity, and who is under the influence of voluntarily consumed, injected, or ingested alcohol, controlled substances, or volatile substances at the time of the alleged offense is not excused from criminal responsibility on the basis of mental illness if the alcohol or substance caused, triggered, or substantially contributed to the mental illness.

(4)(a) “Mental illness” means a mental disease or defect that substantially impairs a person's mental, emotional, or behavioral functioning. A mental defect may be a congenital condition, the result of injury, or a residual effect of a physical  or mental disease and includes, but is not limited to, mental retardation.

(b) “Mental illness” does not mean an abnormality manifested primarily by repeated criminal conduct.

(5) “Mental retardation” means a significant subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior, and manifested prior to age 22.

CREDIT(S)

Laws 1983, c. 49, § 1; Laws 1986, c. 120, § 1; Laws 1990, c. 306, § 3; Laws 1999, c. 2, § 1, eff. May 3, 1999; Laws 2003, c. 11, § 2, eff. March 15, 2003.

Current through 2012 Fourth Special Session.

West's Idaho Code Annotated Currentness

Title 18. Crimes and Punishments

Chapter 2. Persons Liable, Principals and Accessories

§ 18-207. Mental condition not a defense--Provision for treatment during incarceration--Reception of evidence--Notice and appointment of expert examiners

(1) Mental condition shall not be a defense to any charge of criminal conduct.

(2) If by the provisions of section 19-2523, Idaho Code, the court finds that one convicted of crime suffers from any mental condition requiring treatment, such person shall be committed to the board of correction or such city or county official as provided by law for placement in an appropriate facility for treatment, having regard for such conditions of security as the case may require. In the event a sentence of incarceration has been imposed, the defendant shall receive treatment in a facility which provides for incarceration or less restrictive confinement. In the event that a course of treatment thus commenced shall be concluded prior to the expiration of the sentence imposed, the offender shall remain liable for the remainder of such sentence, but shall have credit for time incarcerated for treatment.

(3) Nothing herein is intended to prevent the admission of expert evidence on the issue of any state of mind which is an element of the offense, subject to the rules of evidence.

(4) No court shall, over the objection of any party, receive the evidence of any expert witness on any issue of mental condition, or permit such evidence to be placed before a jury, unless such evidence is fully subject to the adversarial process in at least the following particulars:

(a) Notice must be given at least ninety (90) days in advance of trial, or such other period as justice may require, that a party intends to raise any issue of mental condition and to call expert witnesses concerning such issue, failing which such witness shall not be permitted to testify until such time as the opposing party has a complete opportunity to consider the substance of such testimony and prepare for rebuttal through such opposing expert(s) as the party may choose.

(b) A party who expects to call an expert witness to testify on an issue of mental condition must, on a schedule to be set by the court, furnish to the opposing party a written synopsis of the findings of such expert, or a copy of a written report. The court may authorize the taking of depositions to inquire further into the substance of such reports or synopses.

(c) Raising an issue of mental condition in a criminal proceeding shall constitute a waiver of any privilege that might otherwise be interposed to bar the production of evidence on the subject and, upon request, the court shall order that the state's experts shall have access to the defendant in such cases for the purpose of having its own experts conduct an examination in preparation for any legal proceeding at which the defendant's mental condition may be in issue.

(d) The court is authorized to appoint at least one (1) expert at public expense upon a showing by an indigent defendant that there is a need to inquire into questions of the defendant's mental condition. The costs of examination shall be paid by the defendant if he is financially able. The determination of ability to pay shall be made in accordance with chapter 8, title 19, Idaho Code.

(e) If an examination cannot be conducted by reason of the unwillingness of the defendant to cooperate, the examiner shall so advise the court in writing. In such cases the court may deny the party refusing to cooperate the right to present evidence in support of a mental status claim unless the interest of justice requires otherwise and shall instruct the jury that it may consider the party's lack of cooperation for its effect on the credibility of the party's mental status claim.

CREDIT(S)

S.L. 1982, ch. 368, § 2; S.L. 1996, ch. 225, § 1.

Current through (2013) Chs. 1, 2, 4, 17, 20, 22, 39, 40, 41, 47, 55, 62, 67, 82, 83, 96, 97, 109, 112, 113, 135, 140, 147, 155, 170, 179, 180, 184, 225, 239, 243, 253, 261, 263, 271, 272, 276, 294, 329, 330, 332, 334, 337, 340, 345, 353 that are effective on or before July 1, 2013

West's Kansas Statutes Annotated Currentness

Chapter 21. Crimes and Punishments

Article 52. Principles of Criminal Liability

21-5209. Defense of lack of mental state

It shall be a defense to a prosecution under any statute that the defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacked the culpable mental state required as an element of the crime charged. Mental disease or defect is not otherwise a defense.

CREDIT(S)

Laws 2010, ch. 136, § 20, eff. July 1, 2011.

Current through 2012 regular session.