Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 13A-3-1 (2026)
Mental Disease or Defect.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
(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.
(Acts 1977, No. 607, p. 812, §501; Acts 1988, No. 88-654, p. 1051, §2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58
cases, 1982–2020 · leading case: Williams v. State.
Williams v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). “88-654, now codified at Ala.Code § 13A-3-1 (Supp. 1990). Subsection (a) of that statute provides that: "`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 a severe…”
Knight v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2005). “88-654, now codified at Ala.Code § 13A-3-1 (Supp.1990). Subsection (a) of that statute provides that: "`"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 a severe…”
Williams v. Allen (11th Cir. 2010). “2004) (explaining that Ala.Code § 13A-3-1, provides that insanity is an "affirmative defense which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence”).”
Albarran v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2011). “Code 1975, specifically provides: “Intoxication in itself does not constitute mental disease or defect within the meaning of § 13A-3-1.” Section 13A-3-1(a), Ala.Code 1975, provides: “It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for any crime that, at the time of the commission…”
Sharifi v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2008). “This issue was never presented to the circuit court. Moreover, in Sharifi's brief he makes no reference to his own case.”
Kahler v. Kansas (2020). “, Ala. Code § 13A-3-1 (2015). Others prohibit its assertion by defendants with specific mental disorders.”
Borden v. Allen (11th Cir. 2011). “Ala.Code § 13A-3-1. [5] The State did not present any evidence regarding Borden's mental health during its case in chief.”
Archie v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “88-654, now codified at Ala.Code § 13A-3-1 (Supp.1990). Subsection (a) of that statute provides that: "`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 a severe…”
Janezic v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). “88-654, now codified at Ala.Code § 13A-3-1 (Supp. 1990). Subsection (a) of that statute provides that: "`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 a severe…”
Neelley v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1985). “"One researcher suggests that the psychological effects of the Battered Spouse Syndrome can be compared to classic brainwashing", see Steinmetz, Wife Beating: A Critique and Reformulation of Existing Theory, 6 Amer.”
Miller v. State (Ala. Civ. App. 2011). “’ Ala.Code § 13A-3-1. However, as demonstrated during trial and the [Rule 32] evidentiary hearing, none of the four mental health experts who examined Miller concluded that he was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his actions.”
Donald Dwayne Whatley v. State of Alabama. (Ala. Crim. App. 2010). “Although intoxication in itself does not constitute a mental disease or defect within the meaning of § 13A-3-1, Code of Alabama 1975, intoxication does include a disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body.”
— Ala. Code § 13A-3-1(a) — 16 cases
Williams v. Allen (11th Cir. 2010). “2004) (explaining that Ala.Code § 13A-3-1, provides that insanity is an "affirmative defense which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence”).”
David Lee Roberts v. Comm'r, Alabama Dep't of Corr. (11th Cir. 2012).
Archie v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 2003). “88-654, now codified at Ala.Code § 13A-3-1 (Supp.1990). Subsection (a) of that statute provides that: "`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 a severe…”
Kahler v. Kansas (2020). “, Ala. Code § 13A-3-1 (2015). Others prohibit its assertion by defendants with specific mental disorders.”
Janezic v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). “88-654, now codified at Ala.Code § 13A-3-1 (Supp. 1990). Subsection (a) of that statute provides that: "`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 a severe…”
— Ala. Code § 13A-3-1(c) — 7 cases
Click v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).
Williams v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1996). “88-654, now codified at Ala.Code § 13A-3-1 (Supp. 1990). Subsection (a) of that statute provides that: "`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 a severe…”
Williams v. Allen (11th Cir. 2010). “2004) (explaining that Ala.Code § 13A-3-1, provides that insanity is an "affirmative defense which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence”).”
Thomas v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1998).
Commonwealth v. Keita (Mass. 1999).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.