(a) Whenever it shall be made known to the presiding judge of a court by which an indictment has been returned against a defendant for a capital offense, that there is reasonable ground to believe that such defendant may presently lack the capacity to proceed or continue to trial, as defined in Section 22-52-30, or whenever said judge receives notice that the defense of said defendant may proceed on the basis of mental disease or defect as a defense to criminal responsibility; it shall be the duty of the presiding judge to forthwith order that such defendant be committed to the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation for examination by one or more mental health professionals appointed by the Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation. The commissioner shall place the defendant under the observation and examination of one or more mental health professionals, each of whom is either a licensed psychologist holding a Psy. D. or Ph.D degree or a licensed physician who specializes in psychiatry. The assigned mental health professional(s) shall examine the defendant with respect to determining the presence of any mental disease or defect which, if determined to be present, would affect the capacity of the defendant to proceed or continue to trial or which would affect the defendant’s criminal responsibility at the time of the commission of the crime.
(b) Such defendant shall be subject to the observation of and examination by the mental health professional(s) appointed by the commissioner for such length of time as may be necessary to determine the mental condition of the defendant so far as it affects his capacity to proceed or continue to trial or his criminal responsibility.
(c) As soon as the assigned mental health professional(s) has completed the examination of the defendant, said mental health professional(s) shall make a full written report thereof to the clerk of the court in which the indictment against said defendant is pending, which report shall be placed on file and be accessible to the court, to the district attorney and to the counsel for the defendant.
(d) It shall be the duty of the clerk of said court upon receipt of said report to issue an order to the sheriff of the county directing that such defendant be remanded and removed to jail and that the criminal proceedings against him be resumed or he be otherwise legally discharged.
(e) The expense of removing such defendant to and from the hospitals and of maintaining him while there confined shall be paid in the same manner as provided by law in the case of persons adjudged to be of unsound mind following inquisition in the probate court.
(Acts 1933, Ex. Sess., No. 157, p. 144; Code 1940, T. 15, §425; Acts 1990, No. 90-637, p. 1171.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case:
McGahee v. State, 554 So. 2d 473 (Ala. 1989).
McGahee v. State, 554 So. 2d 473 (Ala. 1989).
· cites it 4× “Ala.Code 1975, § 15-16-22. At Taylor Hardin, three psychiatrists, who constituted a Lunacy Commission, examined McGahee and determined that he was competent to stand trial.”
Cate v. State, 134 So. 3d 870 (Ala. 2013).
· cites it 12× “Code 1975, as'follows: “[T]he provisions of § 15-16-22, Ala. Code (1975)[J have no application to the present case.”
Jones v. State, 43 So. 3d 1258 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Also, § 15-16-22, Ala.Code 1975, provides that, if a circuit court receives notice that a capital defendant “may proceed on the basis of mental disease or defect as a defense to criminal responsibility,” it should order a mental examination.”
Lam Luong v. State, 199 So. 3d 173 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016).
“That Pate holding is incorporated into § 15-16-22, Ala.Code 1975. That section reads, in pertinent part: “(a) Whenever it shall be made known to the presiding judge of a court by which an indictment has been returned against a defendant for a capital offense, that there is…”
Lewis v. State, 380 So. 2d 970 (Ala. Crim. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “Defendant had requested, but had not obtained, an order of court pursuant to Ala.Code 1975 § 15-16-22, for the initiation of process aimed toward the appointment of a Commission on Lunacy "with the view of determining the mental condition of such defendant and the existence of…”
Vernon Madison v. Comm'r, Alabama Dep't of Corr., 851 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2017).
“Some Alabama cases, in addressing competency to stand trial under Ala. Code § 15-16-22 . have explained that the defendant bears an initial burden of producing evidence that he is incompetent, but once he does so the state “must then prove that [he] is competent.”
Bell v. State, 461 So. 2d 855 (Ala. Crim. App. 1984).
· cites it 2× “the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is understandable for at least two reasons: (1) The intense antipathy to insanity defenses that has apparently reached a peak in the last several years, particularly since the trial for the attempt to assassinate the President of the…”
Magwood v. Smith, 791 F.2d 1438 (11th Cir. 1986).
“Despite this report, the court ordered Magwood committed to Alabama’s Searcy Hospital for further tests by a three-member lunacy commission pursuant to Ala.Code § 15-16-22. On August 16, 1979, the lunacy commission reported that Magwood suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, was…”
Mark Jenkins v. Comm'r, Alabama Dep't of Corr., 936 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. 2019).
“Ala. Code § 15-16-22 (a). “The assigned mental health professional(s) shall examine the defendant with respect to determining the presence of any mental disease or defect which, if determined to be present, would affect the 42 Case: 17-12524 Date Filed: 08/30/2019 Page: 43 of 73…”
Weeks v. State, 257 So. 3d 894 (Ala. Crim. App. 2018).
“That section reads, in pertinent part: " '(a) Whenever it shall be made known to the presiding judge of a court by which an indictment has been returned against a defendant for a capital offense, that there is reasonable ground to believe that such defendant may presently lack…”
Neal v. State, 551 So. 2d 933 (Ala. 1989).
“In so holding, however, we are not to be understood as voiding the trial court’s exercise of its discretion to order the defendant committed to a state hospital pursuant to § 15-16-22. We hold simply that the statutory discretion afforded the trial court to seek a psychiatric…”
— Ala. Code § 15-16-22(a) — 3 cases
Cate v. State, 134 So. 3d 870 (Ala. 2013).
“Code 1975, as'follows: “[T]he provisions of § 15-16-22, Ala. Code (1975)[J have no application to the present case.”
Jones v. State, 43 So. 3d 1258 (Ala. Crim. App. 2007).
“Also, § 15-16-22, Ala.Code 1975, provides that, if a circuit court receives notice that a capital defendant “may proceed on the basis of mental disease or defect as a defense to criminal responsibility,” it should order a mental examination.”
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.