Competency and Insanity Laws

All Competency

All Insanity

By State:

Alabama Competency - Alabama Insanity

Alaska Competency - Alaska Insanity

Arizona Competency - Arizona Insanity

Arkansas Competency - Arkansas Insanity

California Competency - California Insanity

Colorado Competency - Colorado Insanity

Connecticut Competency - Connecticut Insanity

Delaware Competency - Delaware Insanity

Florida Competency - Florida Insanity

Georgia Competency - Georgia Insanity

Hawaii Competency - Hawaii Insanity

Idaho Competency - Idaho Insanity

Illinois Competency - Illinois Insanity

Indiana Competency - Indiana Insanity

Iowa Competency - Iowa Insanity

Kansas Competency - Kansas Insanity

Kentucky Competency - Kentucky Insanity

Louisiana Competency - Louisiana Insanity

Maine Competency - Maine Insanity

Maryland Competency - Maryland Insanity

Massachusetts Competency - Massachusetts Insanity

Michigan Competency - Michigan Insanity

Minnesota Competency - Minnesota Insanity

Mississippi Competency - Mississippi Insanity

Missouri Competency - Missouri Insanity

Montana Competency - Montana Insanity

Nebraska Competency - Nebraska Insanity

Nevada Competency - Nevada Insanity

New Hampshire Competency - New Hampshire Insanity

New Jersey Competency - New Jersey Insanity

New Mexico Competency - New Mexico Insanity

New York Competency - New York Insanity

North Carolina Competency - North Carolina Insanity

North Dakota Competency - North Dakota Insanity

Ohio Competency - Ohio Insanity

Oklahoma Competency - Oklahoma Insanity

Oregon Competency - Oregon Insanity

Pennsylvania Competency - Pennsylvania Insanity

Rhode Island Competency - Rhode Island Insanity

South Carolina Competency - South Carolina Insanity

South Dakota Competency - South Dakota Insanity

Tennessee Competency - Tennessee Insanity

Texas Competency - Texas Insanity

Utah Competency - Utah Insanity

Vermont Competency - Vermont Insanity

Virginia Competency - Virginia Insanity

Washington Competency - Washington Insanity

West Virginia Competency - West Virginia Insanity

Wisconsin Competency - Wisconsin Insanity

Wyoming Competency - Wyoming Insanity

 


Competency

Alabama

Defendant is considered incompetent to stand trial or be sentenced if he lacks present ability to help in his defense by working with lawyer with a reasonable degree of understanding of the facts and legal proceedings; procedure for competency evaluations and determinations. Alabama Rule of Crim. P. Rule 11.

 

Alaska

 

Defendant is considered incompetent if the defendant is unable to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense

Presumption of competency – burden on Defendant to show incompetence

In determining whether a person has sufficient intellectual functioning to adapt or cope with the ordinary demands of life, the court shall consider whether the person has obtained a driver's license, is able to maintain employment, or is competent to testify as a witness under the Alaska Rules of Evidence.

In determining if the defendant is unable to understand the proceedings against the defendant, the court shall consider, among other factors considered relevant by the court, whether the defendant understands that the defendant has been charged with a criminal offense and that penalties can be imposed; whether the defendant understands what criminal conduct is being alleged; whether the defendant understands the roles of the judge, jury, prosecutor, and defense counsel; whether the defendant understands that the defendant will be expected to tell defense counsel the circumstances, to the best of the defendant's ability, surrounding the defendant's activities at the time of the alleged criminal conduct; and whether the defendant can distinguish between a guilty and not guilty plea.

In determining if the defendant is unable to assist in the defendant's own defense, the court shall consider, among other factors considered relevant by the court, whether the defendant's mental disease or defect affects the defendant's ability to recall and relate facts pertaining to the defendant's actions at times relevant to the charges and whether the defendant can respond coherently to counsel's questions. A defendant is able to assist in the defense even though the defendant's memory may be impaired, the defendant refuses to accept a course of action that counsel or the court believes is in the defendant's best interest, or the defendant is unable to suggest a particular strategy or to choose among alternative defenses. Alaska Stat. § 12.47.100.

 

Arizona

 

Defines "incompetent to stand trial": as a result of a mental illness, defect or disability a defendant is unable to understand the nature and object of the proceeding or to assist in the defendant's defense. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4501.

 

A person cannot be tried, convicted, sentenced or punished for an offense if the court determines that the person is incompetent to stand trial. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4502.

 

If Defendant is “insane or mentally defective to the extent that he is unable to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense, if charged with a crime, or for the reason that he is found insane after conviction and prior to pronouncing sentence” he is sent to hospital for competency restoration. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3991.

 

Arkansas

 

No person who lacks the capacity to understand a proceeding against him or her or to assist effectively in his or her own defense as a result of mental disease or defect shall be tried, convicted, or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long as the incapacity endures. Ark. Code § 5-2-302.

 

California

 

**Addresses incompetency due to developmental disability specifically

 

Defines incompetency as: “… as a result of mental disorder or developmental disability, the defendant is unable to understand the nature of the criminal proceedings or to assist counsel in the conduct of a defense in a rational manner.” Cal. Penal Code § 1367.

 

Defendants must be examined by county health professionals before being hospitalized – specifically addresses procedure if defendant is developmentally disabled – applies to defendants with developmental disabilities and outlines procedure to be deemed competent or incompetent. Cal. Penal Code § 1370.01.

 

Colorado

 

A person cannot be tried, convicted, sentenced or punished for an offense if the court determines that the person is incompetent to stand trial. Co. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-8-102.

 

Procedure for competency evaluations and determinations by court. Co. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-8-105.

 

Connecticut

 

Defendant is presumed competent. Procedure for competency evaluation, determination, and restoration. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-56d.

 

Delaware

 

Whenever the court is satisfied, after hearing, that an accused person, because of mental illness or serious mental disorder, is unable to understand the nature of the proceedings against the accused, or to give evidence in the accused's own defense or to instruct counsel on the accused's own behalf, the court may order the accused person to be confined and treated in the Delaware Psychiatric Center until the accused person is capable of standing trial. However, upon motion of the defendant, the court may conduct a hearing to determine whether the State can make out a prima facie case against the defendant, and if the State fails to present sufficient evidence to constitute a prima facie case, the court shall dismiss the charge (has the same effect as a judgment of acquittal). 11 Del. Crim. Code § 404.

 

Florida

 

Title XLVII, Chapter 916, Part III addresses competency of those are intellectually disabled or autistic specifically

 

A defendant who is suspected to have an intellectual disability or autism is incompetent to proceed if the defendant does not have sufficient present ability to consult with the defendant’s lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding or if the defendant has no rational, as well as factual, understanding of the proceedings against the defendant. Fla. Stat. § 916.3012.

 

A defendant with I/DD who is found incompetent can be involuntarily committed for competency restoration.  Fla. Stat. § 916.302.

 

Outlines procedure for juvenile incompetence determination. Fla. Stat. § 985.19.

 

Georgia

 

-

 

Hawaii

 

A person cannot be tried, convicted, sentenced or punished for an offense if the court determines that the person is incompetent to stand trial. Ha. Rev. Stat. § 704-403.

 

Describes procedures for determining incompetence to stand trial. Ha. Rev. Stat. § 704-403-406.

 

Idaho

 

No person who as a result of mental disease or defect lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense shall be tried, convicted, sentenced or punished for the commission of an offense so long as such incapacity endures. Id. Stat. § 18-210.

 

Illinois

 

A defendant is presumed to be fit to stand trial or to plead, and be sentenced. A defendant is unfit if, because of his mental or physical condition, he is unable to understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense. 725 ILCS 5/104-10.

 

Defendant has the right to have the issue of fitness to stand trial decided by a jury. 725 ILCS 5/104-12.

 

Procedure for competency evaluation and hearing; determination of “fitness” to be tried; commitment if found incompetent. 725 ILCS 5/104 generally.

 

Indiana

 

Competency findings and procedures. IC § 35-36-3.

 

Iowa

If at any stage of a criminal proceeding the defendant or the defendant’s attorney, upon application to the court, alleges specific facts showing that the defendant is suffering from a mental disorder which prevents the defendant from appreciating the charge, understanding the proceedings, or assisting effectively in the defense, the court must suspend further proceedings and determine if probable cause exists to sustain the allegations. The applicant has the burden of establishing probable cause. The court may on its own motion schedule a hearing to determine probable cause if the defendant or defendant’s attorney has failed or refused to make an application. Iowa Code § 812.3.

 

Competency hearing, evaluation, restoration, procedure for determination. Iowa Code § 812 (entire section).

 

Kansas

 

A person is "incompetent to stand trial" when he is charged with a crime and, because of mental illness or defect is unable: (a) To understand the nature and purpose of the proceedings against him; or (b) to make or assist in making his defense. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3301.

 

Proceedings and evaluation to determine competency. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3302.

 

Commitment of the incompetent. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3303.

 

Kentucky

 

-

 

Louisiana

 

Mental incapacity to proceed exists when, as a result of mental disease or defect, a defendant presently lacks the capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his defense; procedure for finding of incapacity to proceed and when capacity is regained. La. Code Crim. P. Art. 641-648.

 

Maine

Juvenile competency: A juvenile is competent to proceed in a juvenile proceeding if the juvenile has: A rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against the juvenile; and B. A sufficient present ability to consult with legal counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. 15 M.R.S.A. 3318-A.

 

Outline of procedure for forensic examination to determine competency. 15 M.R.S.A. 101-D.

 

Maryland

 

Juvenile competency determinations and hearings; if a juvenile is incompetent, judge may dismiss delinquency petition. Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, 3-8A-17.7.

 

Procedure for juvenile competency examinations. Md. Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings, 3-8A-17.3.

 

Massachusetts

 

Competency evaluation and procedures. M.G.L.A. 123 § 15.

 

Michigan

 

A defendant to a criminal charge shall be presumed competent to stand trial. He shall be determined incompetent to stand trial only if he is incapable because of his mental condition of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings against him or of assisting in his defense in a rational manner. The court shall determine the capacity of a defendant to assist in his defense by his ability to perform the tasks reasonably necessary for him to perform in the preparation of his defense and during his trial. Mich. Comp. Law § 330.2020.

 

Minnesota

 

Juvenile competency – appointing an expert. M.S.A. § 260B.050.

 

No person with an impairment so as to be incapable of understanding the proceedings or making a defense shall be tried, sentenced, or punished for any crime. M.S.A. § 611.026.

 

Mississippi

 

-

 

Missouri

 

Evidence that the defendant did or did not suffer from a mental disease or defect shall be admissible in a criminal proceeding to determine whether the defendant lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist in his own defense. V.A.M.S. § 552.015.

 

Montana

 

A person who, as a result of mental disease or disorder or developmental disability, is unable to understand the proceedings against the person or to assist in the person's own defense may not be tried, convicted, or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long as the incapacity endures. MCA § 46-14-103.

 

Nebraska

 

If at any time the court is given notice that the defendant may not be competent to stand trial, it may order an evaluation. The court has the ultimate authority to determine competency. If competency cannot be restored, civil commitment proceedings. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1823.

 

Nevada

 

“Mental disorder” means a mental illness that results from a psychiatric or neurological disorder that so substantially impairs the mental or emotional functioning of the person as to make care or treatment necessary or advisable for the welfare of the person or for the safety of the person or property of another and includes, without limitation, intellectual disabilities and related conditions. N.R.S. 178.3985.

 

A person may not be tried or adjudged to punishment for a public offense while incompetent. “Incompetent” means that the person does not have the present ability to: (a) Understand the nature of the criminal charges against the person; (b) Understand the nature and purpose of the court proceedings; or (c) Aid and assist the person’s counsel in the defense at any time during the proceedings with a reasonable degree of rational understanding. N.R.S. 178.400.

 

Procedure for competency evaluation and determination; restoration. N.R.S. 178.400 – 178.4715.

 

New Hampshire

 

Civil commitment for sex offenders found incompetent to stand trial – can be committed as sexually violent predator.  If the person's incompetence substantially interferes with the person's ability to assist his or her counsel, the court shall not find the person committed the act or acts charged unless the court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the acts occurred, and that the strength of the state's case, including physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, and corroborating evidence, is such that the person's limitations could not have had a substantial impact on the proceedings. If, after the conclusion of the hearing, the court finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person did commit the act or acts charged, the court shall enter a final order. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 135-E:5.

 

Juveniles must have a factual and rational understanding of the proceedings and be able to consult with their attorney. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 169-B:20.

 

New Jersey

 

The court decides competency to proceed; if the parties have already filed reports on the issue, it may base it’s decision on those; if not it must order a hearing; there is a presumption that charges against a defendant who is not competent to proceed shall be held in abeyance until competence is restored. The presumption can be overcome only if the court determines, using a variety of factors, that continuing the prosecution under the circumstances of the case would constitute a constitutionally significant injury to the defendant attributable to undue delay in being brought to trial. N.J.S.A. 2C:4-6.

 

New Mexico

 

If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has “mental retardation” and that there is not a substantial probability that the defendant will become competent to proceed in a criminal case within a reasonable period of time less than nine months, then the department of health shall perform an evaluation to determine whether the defendant presents a likelihood of serious harm to himself or a likelihood of serious harm to others. If so, commitment proceedings should begin. "Mental retardation" is defined as “significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior. An intelligence quotient of seventy or below on a reliably administered intelligence quotient test shall be presumptive evidence of mental retardation.” NM Stat. § 31-9-1.6.

 

Procedure for finding of competency and incompetent defendants. NM Stat. § 31-9-1 through § 31-9-1.5.

 

New York

 

-

 

North Carolina

 

No person may be tried, convicted, sentenced, or punished for a crime when by reason of mental illness or defect he is unable to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to comprehend his own situation in reference to the proceedings, or to assist in his defense in a rational or reasonable manner. This condition is hereinafter referred to as "incapacity to proceed." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1001.

 

Procedure for competency hearing, evaluation, restoration, dismissal of charges if competency cannot be restored. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 15A-1002 through 15A-1008.

 

North Dakota

 

No person who, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacks capacity to understand the proceedings against the person or to assist in the person's own defense shall be tried, convicted, or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long as such incapacity endures. NDCC 12.1-04-04.

 

Procedure for finding a defendant incompetent to stand trial, competency restoration, and what happens if competency cannot be restored. NDCC 12.1-04-05- 12.1-04-08.

 

Ohio

 

If an offender is charged with a criminal offense and the court has reason to believe that at the time of committing that offense, the offender had a mental illness or was a person with intellectual disability and that the mental illness or status as a person with intellectual disability was a factor leading to the offender's criminal behavior, the court may accept, prior to the entry of a guilty plea, the offender's request for intervention in lieu of conviction; there must be a hearing to determine if it applies. "Person with intellectual disability" means a person having significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficiencies in adaptive behavior, manifested during the developmental period. Ohio Rev. Code § 2951.041.

 

The court may require mental condition evaluations on people who violate domestic protection orders. Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.71.

 

A defendant is presumed to be competent to stand trial. If, after a hearing, the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that, because of the defendant's present mental condition, the defendant is incapable of understanding the nature and objective of the proceedings against the defendant or of assisting in the defendant's defense, the court shall find the defendant incompetent to stand trial. A psychologist designated by the director of developmental disabilities pursuant to that section to conduct that separate mental retardation evaluation. There is a procedure outline for competence restoration and procedure for competency determination and hearings. Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2945.37 through 2945.39.

 

Oklahoma

 

If the court finds that there is a question as to competency, an evaluation must be conducted; procedure for determination of competency generally. 22 Okl. Stat. Ann. § 1175.3.

 

Oregon

 

Juvenile: If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the young person, at the time of disposition, has a serious mental condition or has a mental disease or defect other than a serious mental condition and presents a substantial danger to others, requiring conditional release or commitment to a hospital or facility, the court shall order the young person placed under the jurisdiction of the Psychiatric Security Review Board. O.R.S. § 419C.529.

 

If the court determines that the defendant lacks fitness to proceed, the criminal proceeding against the defendant shall be suspended and if the court finds that the defendant is dangerous to self or others as a result of mental disease or defect, or that the services and supervision necessary to restore the defendant’s fitness to proceed are not available in the community, the court shall commit the defendant to the custody of the superintendent of a state mental hospital or director of a facility, designated by the Oregon Health Authority, if the defendant is at least 18 years of age, or to the custody of the director of a secure intensive community inpatient facility designated by the authority if the defendant is under 18 years of age. O.R.S. § 161.370.

 

Pennsylvania

 

-

 

Rhode Island

 

A person is mentally competent to stand trial if he or she is able to understand the character and consequences of the proceedings against him or her and is able properly to assist in his or her defense; Defendant is presumed competent; examination and periodic review of competency to stand trial. R.I. Gen. Laws § 40.1.-5.3-3.

 

South Carolina

 

-

 

South Dakota

 

Juvenile: A juvenile cannot be prosecuted while incompetent; procedure to evaluate and determine competency. SDCL §§ 26-7A-32.1 through 26-7A-32.12.

 

Tennessee

 

-

 

Texas

 

Juvenile: the court shall determine whether probable cause exists to believe that a child, including a child with a mental illness or developmental disability: (1) lacks the capacity to understand the proceedings in criminal court or to assist in the child's own defense and is unfit to proceed; or (2) lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of the child's own conduct or to conform the child's conduct to the requirement of the law. If the court determines that probable cause exists for such a finding, after providing notice to the state, the court may dismiss the complaint. Tex. Penal Code § 8.08.

 

If there is reason to believe that there is a competency issue, the court must be informed and then order an evaluation by an expert. After the trial court receives the applicable expert's written assessment relating to the defendant it may, as applicable: (1) resume criminal proceedings against the defendant; (2) resume or initiate competency proceedings, if required, or other proceedings affecting the defendant's receipt of appropriate court-ordered mental health or mental retardation services; or

(3) consider the written assessment during the punishment phase after a conviction of the offense for which the defendant was arrested, as part of a presentence investigation report, or in connection with the impositions of conditions following placement on community supervision, including deferred adjudication community supervision. Tex. Code Crim. P. § 16.22.

 

Utah

 

-

 

Vermont

 

-

 

Virginia

 

If the court finds that the defendant lacks substantial capacity to understand the proceedings against him or to assist his attorney in his own defense, the court shall order that a competency evaluation be performed by at least one psychiatrist or clinical psychologist who is qualified by training and experience in forensic evaluation. Competency evaluation, report, determination. Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-169.1.

 

Washington

 

Whenever a defendant has pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, or there is reason to doubt his or her competency, the court shall either appoint or request the secretary to designate a qualified expert or professional person, who shall be approved by the prosecuting attorney, to evaluate and report upon the mental condition of the defendant. Wash. Rev. Code § 10.77.060.

 

Competency and insanity evaluations, hearings, procedures. Wash. Rev. Code §§ 10.77.010 through 10.77.950 (all of Chapter 10.77).

 

Persons who are developmentally disabled shall not be detained for evaluation and treatment or judicially committed solely by reason of that condition unless such condition causes a person to be gravely disabled or as a result of a mental disorder such condition exists that constitutes a likelihood of serious harm. Persons who are developmentally disabled and who otherwise meet the criteria for detention or judicial commitment are not ineligible for detention or commitment based on this condition alone. Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.040.

 

West Virginia

 

Procedure for competency evaluation. W. Va. Code §27-6A-2.

 

Wisconsin

 

No person who lacks substantial mental capacity to understand the proceedings or assist in his or her own defense may be tried, convicted or sentenced for the commission of an offense so long as the incapacity endures. Wis. Stat. § 971.13.

 

Competency proceedings and procedure. Wis. Stat. § 971.14.

 

Wyoming

 

No person shall be tried, sentenced, or punished if they lack capacity. Wyo. Stat. § 7-11-302

 

 

Insanity

 

Alabama

Insanity is an affirmative defense (burden on Defendant to show that he was insane [did not know the criminal act was wrong] at the time of the crime, not on state to show that he wasn’t insane at the time). Ala. Code § 15-16-2.

Insanity definition: the defendant, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of his acts; must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Ala. Code § 13A-3-1.

 

Alaska

 

Insanity is an affirmative defense (burden on Defendant to show that he was insane [did not know the criminal act was wrong] at the time of the crime, not on state to show that he wasn’t insane at the time). Alaska Stat. § 12.47.010.

 

Procedure for insanity pleas/ guilty but mentally ill/ not guilty by reason of insanity evaluations and commitment). Alaska Stat. § 12.47 – entire chapter.

 

Guilty but mentally ill verdict - A defendant is guilty but mentally ill if, when the defendant engaged in the criminal conduct, the defendant lacked, as a result of a mental disease or defect, the substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of that conduct or to conform that conduct to the requirements of law.  A defendant found guilty but mentally ill is not relieved of criminal responsibility. Alaska Stat. § 12.47.030.

 

Arizona

 

Insanity is an affirmative defense (burden on Defendant to show that he was insane [did not know the criminal act was wrong] at the time of the crime, not on state to show that he wasn’t insane at the time). Guilty but insane verdict – must prove insanity by clear and convincing evidence. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-502.

 

Arkansas

 

It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution that at the time the defendant engaged in the conduct charged he or she lacked capacity as a result of mental disease or defect to:

(A) Conform his or her conduct to the requirements of law; or

(B) Appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct. When the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect is presented to a jury, prior to deliberations the jury shall be instructed regarding the disposition of a defendant acquitted on a ground of mental disease or defect. Ark. Code § 5-2-312.

 

California

 

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. Cal. Penal Code § 25.

 

Colorado

 

Sanity is presumed, but once the defendant has introduced any evidence of insanity, the burden is on the state to prove sanity. Co. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-8-103-103.5.

 

Connecticut

 

-

 

Delaware

 

It is an affirmative defense that, at the time of the conduct charged, as a result of mental illness or serious mental disorder, the accused lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the accused's conduct. 11 Del. Crim. Code § 401.

 

Guilty but mentally ill - no finding of "guilty, but mentally ill" can be rendered until the trier of fact has examined all reports (including the presentence investigation); has held a hearing on the sole issue of the defendant's mental illness, at which either party may present evidence; and is satisfied that the defendant did in fact have a mental illness at the time of the offense to which the plea is entered. 11 Del. Crim. Code § 408.

 

Florida

 

-

 

Georgia

 

A person may not be found guilty of a crime if, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the person did not have mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to such act, omission, or negligence. Ga. Code § 16-3-2.

 

Guilty but insane plea and related pleas; procedure - A person may not be found guilty of a crime when, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the person, because of mental disease, injury, or congenital deficiency, acted as he did because of a delusional compulsion as to such act which overmastered his will to resist committing the crime. Ga. Code § 16-3-3.

 

Guilty but mentally retarded plea (the finding of mental retardation shall be made only in felony cases) - "Mentally retarded" means having significantly sub average general intellectual functioning resulting in or associated with impairments in adaptive behavior which manifested during the developmental period. The defendant may be found "guilty but mentally retarded" if the jury, or court acting as trier of facts, finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged and is mentally retarded. If the court or jury should make such finding, it shall so specify in its verdict. Ga. Code § 17-7-131.

 

Hawaii

 

A person is not competent if, at the time of the conduct, as a result of physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect the person lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of the person's conduct or to conform the person's conduct to the requirements of law (they call it incompetence, but this is actually insanity since it measures competence at the time the offense was committed). Ha. Rev. Stat. § 704-400.

 

Idaho

 

-

 

Illinois

 

A person is not criminally responsible for conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or mental defect, he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity. However, the burden of proof remains on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of each of the offenses charged, and, in a jury trial where the insanity defense has been presented, the jury must be instructed that it may not consider whether the defendant has met his burden of proving that he is not guilty by reason of insanity until and unless it has first determined that the State has proven the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the offense with which he is charged. 720 ILCS 5/6-2.

 

Indiana

 

Finding or plea of guilty but mentally ill; hearing procedure and evaluation. IC § 35-36-2-2 through § 35-36-2-5.

 

Iowa

 

-

 

Kansas

 

Evidence of mental disease or defect excluding criminal responsibility is not admissible upon a trial unless the defendant serves upon the prosecuting attorney and files with the court a written notice of such defendant's intention to assert the defense that the defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect lacked the mental state required as an element of the offense charged. Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3219.

 

In any case in which the defense has offered substantial evidence of a mental disease or defect excluding the mental state required as an element of the offense charged, and the jury returns a verdict of "not guilty," the jury shall also answer a special question in the following form:  "Do you find the defendant not guilty solely because the defendant, at the time of the alleged crime, was suffering from a mental disease or defect which rendered the defendant incapable of possessing the required criminal intent?" Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-3221.

 

Kentucky

 

A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental illness or intellectual disability, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. Ken. Rev. Stat. § 504.020 (Chapter 504 discusses procedure, reports, and determinations).

 

Guilty but mentally ill. Ken. Rev. Stat. 504.130.

 

Louisiana

 

Any person with a developmental disability found not guilty by reason of insanity or found to be presently lacking the mental capacity to proceed to trial may be committed for developmental disabilities services or residential living options, or both. LSA-R.S. 28:454.14.

 

Maine

 

Outline of procedure for forensic examination to determine insanity. 15 M.R.S.A. 101-D.

 

Procedure for commitment following a finding of insanity. 15 M.R.S.A. 103.

 

Maryland

 

-

 

Massachusetts

 

-

 

Michigan

 

It is an affirmative defense that the defendant was legally insane when he or she committed the acts constituting the offense. An individual is legally insane if, as a result of mental illness or as a result of having an intellectual disability, that person lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of the law. Mental illness or having an intellectual disability does not otherwise constitute a defense of legal insanity. Burden is on defendant. Mich. Comp. Laws § 768. 21a.  

 

At the conclusion of the trial, where warranted by the evidence, the charge to the jury shall contain instructions that it shall consider separately the issues of the presence or absence of mental illness and the presence or absence of legal insanity and shall also contain instructions as to the verdicts of guilty, guilty but mentally ill, not guilty by reason of insanity, and not guilty. Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.29a.

 

Guilty but mentally ill verdict or plea. Mich. Comp. Laws § 768.36.

 

Minnesota

 

A person shall not be excused from criminal liability except upon proof that at the time of committing the alleged criminal act the person was laboring under such a defect of reason, from one of these causes, as not to know the nature of the act, or that it was wrong. M.S.A. § 611.026.

 

Mississippi

 

If in the course of the investigation it appears that the person was insane when the offense was committed and still is insane, or was a person with an intellectual disability to such an extent as not to be responsible for his or her act or omission at the time when the act or omission charged was made, he shall not be discharged, but the conservator of the peace shall remand the prisoner to custody and immediately report the case to the chancellor or clerk of the chancery court, whose duty it shall be to proceed with the case according to the law provided for persons with mental illness or persons with an intellectual disability. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-13-3.

 

If a person is found not guilty due to an intellectual disability, the jury must make a determination as to whether the defendant is a danger to society – if so, the person will be remanded to custody until proper arrangements are made via chancery court. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-13-9.

 

If mental status is in issue, the court may order an evaluation. Miss. Code Ann. § 99-13-11.

 

Missouri

 

A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect such person was incapable of knowing and appreciating the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of such person's conduct. If the accused raises the issue (i.e. pleads not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect), there must be an examination. V.A.M.S. § 552.030.

 

Montana

 

Evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental disease or disorder or developmental disability is admissible to prove that the defendant did or did not have a state of mind that is an element of the offense. MCA § 46-14-102.

 

When a defendant is found not guilty for the reason that due to a mental disease or disorder the defendant could not have a particular state of mind that is an essential element of the offense charged, the court must order a predisposition investigation which must include an investigation of the present mental condition of the defendant. If the trial was by jury, the court shall hold a hearing to determine the appropriate disposition of the defendant. If the trial was by the court, the court may hold a hearing to obtain any additional testimony it considers necessary to determine the appropriate disposition of the defendant. According to the determination of the court, the person must be discharged or released on conditions the court determines to be necessary or must be committed to the custody of the director of the department of public health and human services to be placed in an appropriate mental health facility for custody, care, and treatment. The period of commitment may not exceed the maximum sentence. MCA § 552.020.

 

Nebraska

 

-

 

Nevada

 

-

 

New Hampshire

 

-

 

New Jersey

 

-

 

New Mexico

 

-

 

New York

 

In any prosecution for an offense, it is an affirmative defense that when the defendant engaged in the proscribed conduct, he lacked criminal responsibility by reason of mental disease or defect. Such lack of criminal responsibility means that at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to know or appreciate either: 1) The nature and consequences of such conduct; or 2) That such conduct was wrong. NY Penal Law § 40.15.

 

North Carolina

 

-

 

North Dakota

 

-

 

Ohio

 

The court shall hold a to determine whether the person found not guilty by reason of insanity is a mentally ill person subject to court order or a mentally retarded person subject to institutionalization by court order within ten court days after the finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. If, at the hearing, the court determines by clear and convincing evidence that the person requires treatment for mental retardation, it shall commit the person to a facility operated by the department of developmental disabilities or another facility, as appropriate. Ohio Rev. Code § 2945.40.

 

Oklahoma

 

-

 

Oregon

 

-

 

Pennsylvania

 

-

 

Rhode Island

 

-

 

South Carolina

 

-

 

South Dakota

 

-

 

Tennessee

 

For defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity with I/DD, they may be allowed to participate in community services to avoid commitment. Tenn. Code Ann. § 33-5-502.

 

Texas

 

-

 

Utah

 

There must be an examination to determine applicability of insanity defense or diminished capacity defense. Utah Code § 77-16A-301.

 

After a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, if the defendant is found to currently have a mental illness, the court shall order the defendant committed to the department if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that: (a) the defendant has a mental illness; and (b) because of that mental illness the defendant presents a substantial danger to self or others. Utah Code § 77-16A-302.

 

Procedure for commitment following NGRI plea or verdict. Utah Code §§ 77-16A-301 through 77-16A-306.

 

A person with an intellectual disability who has been convicted of a felony may not be admitted to an intermediate care facility for people with an intellectual disability unless it is determined by the division that the person may benefit from treatment in that facility. Utah Code § 62A-5-304.

 

Vermont

 

The test when used as a defense in criminal cases is: A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he or she lacks adequate capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his or her conduct or to conform his or her conduct to the requirements of law. Vt. Stat. Ann. § 13-4801.

 

Procedure for evaluation of insanity; hearing; commitment. Vt. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-4801 through 13-4823.

 

Virginia

 

-

 

Washington

 

-

 

West Virginia

 

-

 

Wisconsin

 

A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect the person lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct or conform his or her conduct to the requirements of law. Wis. Stat. § 971.15.

 

Examination of defendant for competency and insanity; procedure. Wis. Stat. § 971.16.

 

Commitment procedure and length for those found not guilty by reason of insanity. Wis. Stat. § 971.17.

 

Wyoming

 

A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of the criminal conduct, as a result of mental illness or deficiency, he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. As used in this section, the terms mental illness or deficiency mean only those severely abnormal mental conditions that grossly and demonstrably impair a person's perception or understanding of reality and that are not attributable primarily to self-induced intoxication. Wyo. Stat. § 7-11-304.