Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 12.47.020 (2026)
Mental disease or defect negating culpable mental state
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 12.47.020. Mental disease or defect negating culpable mental state.
(a) Evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the defendant did or did not have a culpable mental state which is an element of the crime. However, evidence of mental disease or defect that tends to negate a culpable mental state is not admissible unless the defendant, within 10 days of entering a plea, or at such later time as the court may for good cause permit, files a written notice of intent to rely on that defense.
(b) When the trier of fact finds that all other elements of the crime have been proved but, as a result of mental disease or defect, there is a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a culpable mental state that is an element of the crime, it shall enter a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. A defendant acquitted under this subsection, and not found guilty of a lesser included offense, shall automatically be considered to have established the affirmative defense of insanity under AS 12.47.010. The defendant is then subject to the provisions of AS 12.47.090.
(c) If a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is reached under (b) of this section, the trier of fact shall also consider whether the defendant is guilty of any lesser included offense. If the defendant is convicted of a lesser included offense, the defendant shall be sentenced for that offense and shall automatically be considered guilty but mentally ill under AS 12.47.030 and 12.47.050. Upon completion of a sentence for a lesser included offense, a hearing shall be held under AS 12.47.090(c) to determine the necessity of further commitment of the defendant, based on the acquittal for the greater charge under (b) of this section. If the defendant is committed under AS 12.47.090(c), the defendant is subject to the provisions of AS 12.47.090(d) — (i) and (k).
(a) Evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the defendant did or did not have a culpable mental state which is an element of the crime. However, evidence of mental disease or defect that tends to negate a culpable mental state is not admissible unless the defendant, within 10 days of entering a plea, or at such later time as the court may for good cause permit, files a written notice of intent to rely on that defense.
(b) When the trier of fact finds that all other elements of the crime have been proved but, as a result of mental disease or defect, there is a reasonable doubt as to the existence of a culpable mental state that is an element of the crime, it shall enter a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. A defendant acquitted under this subsection, and not found guilty of a lesser included offense, shall automatically be considered to have established the affirmative defense of insanity under AS 12.47.010. The defendant is then subject to the provisions of AS 12.47.090.
(c) If a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is reached under (b) of this section, the trier of fact shall also consider whether the defendant is guilty of any lesser included offense. If the defendant is convicted of a lesser included offense, the defendant shall be sentenced for that offense and shall automatically be considered guilty but mentally ill under AS 12.47.030 and 12.47.050. Upon completion of a sentence for a lesser included offense, a hearing shall be held under AS 12.47.090(c) to determine the necessity of further commitment of the defendant, based on the acquittal for the greater charge under (b) of this section. If the defendant is committed under AS 12.47.090(c), the defendant is subject to the provisions of AS 12.47.090(d) — (i) and (k).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Barrett v. State, 772 P.2d 559 (Alaska Ct. App. 1989).
Barrett v. State, 772 P.2d 559 (Alaska Ct. App. 1989). “Specifically, Barrett contends that the trial court erred in failing to properly instruct the jury under AS 12.47.020. Alaska Statute 12.47.020 provides, in relevant part: Mental disease or defect negating culpable mental state.”
Palmer v. State, 379 P.3d 981 (Alaska Ct. App. 2016). “– 11 – 2507 The prosecutor nevertheless argued (and the superior court essentially agreed) that Palmer’s proposed defense was indistinguishable from a claim of diminished capacity based on mental disease or defect under AS 12.47.020. We disagree. As Palmer correctly points out,…”
Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006). “, Alaska Stat. §§12.47.020 (c), 12.47.030 (2004); Del.”
Lewis v. State, 195 P.3d 622 (Alaska Ct. App. 2008). “010 or diminished capacity as defined in AS 12.47.020, Lewis did in fact place his mental condition at issue.”
Hart v. State, 702 P.2d 651 (Alaska Ct. App. 1985). “AS 12.47.020. 5 It is only in this context that the statutory amendments resulting in the enactment of AS 12.”
Commonwealth v. Trill, 543 A.2d 1106 (Pa. 1988). “See Alaska Stat. §§ 12.47.020 (c), 12.47.030, 12.”
Lord v. State, 262 P.3d 855 (Alaska Ct. App. 2011). “" In addition, AS 12.47.020 provides a "diminished capacity" defense.”
Nelson v. State, 874 P.2d 298 (Alaska Ct. App. 1994). “010 and AS 12.47.020.) Based upon the defense attorney’s representation, Superior Court Judge Brian C.”
State v. Clifton, 315 P.3d 694 (Alaska Ct. App. 2013). “Under AS 12.47.020(a), such evidence "is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the defendant did or did not have a culpable mental state which is an element of the crime [charged].”
State v. Patterson, 740 P.2d 944 (Alaska 1987). “AS 12.47.020 provides in part: Mental disease or defect negating culpable mental state, (a) Evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the defendant did or did not have a culpable mental state which is…”
State v. Groppel, 433 P.3d 1113 (Alaska 2018). “See AS 12.47.020(a) ("Evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the defendant did or did not have a culpable mental state which is an element of the crime.”
Sam v. State, 842 P.2d 596 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992). “He also served notice, pursuant to AS 12.47.020(a), of his intent to raise a defense of diminished capacity.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.47.020(2) — 1 case
Palmer v. State, 379 P.3d 981 (Alaska Ct. App. 2016). “– 11 – 2507 The prosecutor nevertheless argued (and the superior court essentially agreed) that Palmer’s proposed defense was indistinguishable from a claim of diminished capacity based on mental disease or defect under AS 12.47.020. We disagree. As Palmer correctly points out,…”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.47.020(a) — 8 cases
Barrett v. State, 772 P.2d 559 (Alaska Ct. App. 1989). “Specifically, Barrett contends that the trial court erred in failing to properly instruct the jury under AS 12.47.020. Alaska Statute 12.47.020 provides, in relevant part: Mental disease or defect negating culpable mental state.”
Palmer v. State, 379 P.3d 981 (Alaska Ct. App. 2016). “– 11 – 2507 The prosecutor nevertheless argued (and the superior court essentially agreed) that Palmer’s proposed defense was indistinguishable from a claim of diminished capacity based on mental disease or defect under AS 12.47.020. We disagree. As Palmer correctly points out,…”
Lewis v. State, 195 P.3d 622 (Alaska Ct. App. 2008). “010 or diminished capacity as defined in AS 12.47.020, Lewis did in fact place his mental condition at issue.”
State v. Clifton, 315 P.3d 694 (Alaska Ct. App. 2013). “Under AS 12.47.020(a), such evidence "is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the defendant did or did not have a culpable mental state which is an element of the crime [charged].”
State v. Groppel, 433 P.3d 1113 (Alaska 2018). “See AS 12.47.020(a) ("Evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the defendant did or did not have a culpable mental state which is an element of the crime.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.47.020(b) — 6 cases
Barrett v. State, 772 P.2d 559 (Alaska Ct. App. 1989). “Specifically, Barrett contends that the trial court erred in failing to properly instruct the jury under AS 12.47.020. Alaska Statute 12.47.020 provides, in relevant part: Mental disease or defect negating culpable mental state.”
Palmer v. State, 379 P.3d 981 (Alaska Ct. App. 2016). “– 11 – 2507 The prosecutor nevertheless argued (and the superior court essentially agreed) that Palmer’s proposed defense was indistinguishable from a claim of diminished capacity based on mental disease or defect under AS 12.47.020. We disagree. As Palmer correctly points out,…”
Nelson v. State, 874 P.2d 298 (Alaska Ct. App. 1994). “010 and AS 12.47.020.) Based upon the defense attorney’s representation, Superior Court Judge Brian C.”
Lord v. State, 262 P.3d 855 (Alaska Ct. App. 2011). “" In addition, AS 12.47.020 provides a "diminished capacity" defense.”
Lewis v. State, 195 P.3d 622 (Alaska Ct. App. 2008). “010 or diminished capacity as defined in AS 12.47.020, Lewis did in fact place his mental condition at issue.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.47.020(c) — 2 cases
Palmer v. State, 379 P.3d 981 (Alaska Ct. App. 2016). “– 11 – 2507 The prosecutor nevertheless argued (and the superior court essentially agreed) that Palmer’s proposed defense was indistinguishable from a claim of diminished capacity based on mental disease or defect under AS 12.47.020. We disagree. As Palmer correctly points out,…”
Palmer v. State (Alaska Ct. App. 2016).
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.