(a) If a defendant in a criminal case is found not guilty by reason of insanity, the court shall determine whether the defendant should be held for a hearing on the issue of his or her involuntary commitment to the Alabama State Department of Mental Health. If the court determines that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant has a mental illness and as a consequence of the mental illness poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to himself or herself or to others, the court shall order the defendant into the custody of the sheriff until a hearing can be held to determine whether the defendant shall be involuntarily committed. If the court does not make such a determination, then the defendant shall be released from custody.
(b) In determining whether the defendant poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to self or others, the court shall consider all available relevant information, including any known relevant aspects of the defendant’s psychosocial, medical, and psychiatric history, in addition to the defendant’s current behavior.
(Acts 1981, No. 81-708, p. 1189, §1; Act 2022-202, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1995–2009 · leading case:
Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 1276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).
Williams v. State, 710 So. 2d 1276 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).
“§ 15-16-41, et seq.; Ala.R.Cr.P. 25. As we held in part XIII, supra, Alabama's express rejection of the doctrine of diminished capacity has been upheld against constitutional challenges.”
Janezic v. State, 723 So. 2d 696 (Ala. Crim. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “See generally, §§ 15-16-41 and -43, Code of Alabama 1975 (procedures for involuntary commitment to a mental institution).”
Dexter v. State, 842 So. 2d 717 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “2(a) reads, ‘If the defendant is found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, or not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, the court shall forthwith determine whether the defendant should be held for hearing on the issue of his involuntary…”
Ex Parte Alabama Dept. of Mental Health, 18 So. 3d 356 (Ala. 2009).
“Rule 25 essentially restates the procedures codified at §§ 15-16-41 through 15-16-43, Ala.Code 1975, and “The Criminal Psychopath Release Restriction Act,” §§ 15-16-60 through 15-16-71, Ala.”
Ex Parte Alabama Dept. of Mental Health, 18 So. 3d 356 (Ala. 2009).
“Rule 25 essentially restates the procedures codified at §§ 15-16-41 through 15-16-43, Ala.Code 1975, and "The Criminal Psychopath Release Restriction Act," §§ 15-16-60 through 15-16-71, Ala.”
Adams v. State, 670 So. 2d 864 (Ala. 1995).
“The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals should be reversed and the cause remanded with instructions to have the trial court hold a hearing pursuant to § 15-16-41, Ala.Code 1975, to determine whether Adams should be involuntarily committed to the Department of Mental Health…”
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.