Statutes in States That Have Adopted the Mens Rea Approach
| State | Insanity Test | Mitigating Factors at Sentencing | Post-Conviction Opportunities for Treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| Montana | Evidence of mental disease, 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.”5 | “At the time of the commission of the offense the defendant was suffering from a mental disease or disorder or developmental disability that rendered him unable to appreciate the criminality of his behavior or to conform his behavior to the requirements of the law.”20 | If the defendant was found to meet the criteria of MCA 46-14-311, “the mandatory minimum sentence” need not apply and the court will commit him to the custody of the director of the department of public health and human services for treatment for a period of time not to exceed the maximum term of imprisonment. The director may transfer the defendant to another correctional, mental health, residential, or developmental disabilities facility that will better serve his needs.21 |
| Idaho | “Mental condition shall not be a defense to any charge of criminal conduct,” but expert evidence is admissible “on the issue of any state of mind which is an element of the offense.”6 | If the defendant's mental condition is a significant factor in sentencing, the court should consider: | If the defendant is found by clear and convincing evidence to have a severe mental illness that resulted in his inability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law that, without treatment, would result in major distress, the court will authorize treatment during the period of confinement or probation. The statute does not specify where this treatment will occur.7 |
| Extent of defendant's mental illness | |||
| Degree of illness/defect and level of functional impairment | |||
| Prognosis | |||
| Availability of treatment and level of care required | |||
| Risk of danger to public posed by defendant | |||
| “Capacity of the defendant to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law at the time of the offense charged”7 | |||
| Utah | “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.”8 | Not applicable | Allows for verdicts of “guilty with a mental illness at the time of the offense” and “guilty of a lesser offense with a mental illness at the time of the offense,” which provide for the evaluation of a current mental illness and commitment to a mental health facility as part of the sentence.9 |
| Kansas | May raise mental illness to show that the defendant “lacked the culpable mental state required as an element of the offense charged.”10 | The offender, because of physical or mental impairment, lacked substantial capacity for judgment when the offense was committed.11 The crime was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbances. The capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of the defendant's conduct or to conform the defendant's conduct to the requirements of law was substantially impaired.12 | After conviction, can be committed to the state hospital for up to 120 days while the pre-investigation report is conducted.13 |