Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 12.47.060 (2026)
Post-conviction determination of mental illness
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 12.47.060. Post-conviction determination of mental illness.
(a) In a prosecution for a crime when the affirmative defense of insanity is not raised and when evidence of mental disease or defect of the defendant is not admitted at trial under AS 12.47.020, the defendant or the prosecuting attorney may raise the issue of whether the defendant is guilty but mentally ill. A party that seeks a post-conviction determination of guilty but mentally ill must give notice 10 days before trial of intent to do so; however, this deadline is waived if the opposing party presents evidence or argument at trial tending to show that the defendant may be guilty but mentally ill. A hearing must be held on this issue before the same fact finder that returned the verdict of guilty under procedures set by the court. In cases decided by a jury, at the request of the defendant and with the concurrence of the prosecuting attorney, the court may decide the issue. A waiver of consideration by a jury must be in writing and in person before the court. At the hearing, the fact finder shall determine whether the defendant has been shown to be guilty but mentally ill beyond a reasonable doubt, considering evidence presented at the hearing and any evidence relevant to the issue that was presented at trial.
(b) If the fact finder finds that a defendant is guilty but mentally ill, the court shall sentence the defendant as provided by law and shall enter the finding of guilty but mentally ill as part of the judgment.
(c) A defendant determined to be guilty but mentally ill under this section is subject to the provisions of AS 12.47.050.
(d) In this section, “guilty but mentally ill” has the meaning given in AS 12.47.030.
(a) In a prosecution for a crime when the affirmative defense of insanity is not raised and when evidence of mental disease or defect of the defendant is not admitted at trial under AS 12.47.020, the defendant or the prosecuting attorney may raise the issue of whether the defendant is guilty but mentally ill. A party that seeks a post-conviction determination of guilty but mentally ill must give notice 10 days before trial of intent to do so; however, this deadline is waived if the opposing party presents evidence or argument at trial tending to show that the defendant may be guilty but mentally ill. A hearing must be held on this issue before the same fact finder that returned the verdict of guilty under procedures set by the court. In cases decided by a jury, at the request of the defendant and with the concurrence of the prosecuting attorney, the court may decide the issue. A waiver of consideration by a jury must be in writing and in person before the court. At the hearing, the fact finder shall determine whether the defendant has been shown to be guilty but mentally ill beyond a reasonable doubt, considering evidence presented at the hearing and any evidence relevant to the issue that was presented at trial.
(b) If the fact finder finds that a defendant is guilty but mentally ill, the court shall sentence the defendant as provided by law and shall enter the finding of guilty but mentally ill as part of the judgment.
(c) A defendant determined to be guilty but mentally ill under this section is subject to the provisions of AS 12.47.050.
(d) In this section, “guilty but mentally ill” has the meaning given in AS 12.47.030.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1987–2016 · leading case: State v. Clifton, 315 P.3d 694 (Alaska Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Clifton, 315 P.3d 694 (Alaska Ct. App. 2013). “In response, the prosecutor suggested that the State might invoke the procedure codified in the pre-2012 version of AS 12.47.060. This statute applied to cases where a defendant suffering from a.”
Barrett v. State, 772 P.2d 559 (Alaska Ct. App. 1989). “020, or both, that it can consider a verdict of "guilty but mentally ill" in the absence of a separate competency hearing under AS 12.47.060. We agree with the Seventh Circuit that there is no greater risk of jury compromise in this situation than there is when a jury is…”
Lewis v. State, 195 P.3d 622 (Alaska Ct. App. 2008). “In that case, the defense attorney acknowledged, AS 12.47.060 would allow the State to bring up the issue of Lewis's mental illness in a post-verdict proceeding to determine whether the verdict should be amended to "guilty but mentally ill".”
Monroe v. State, 847 P.2d 84 (Alaska Ct. App. 1993). “We noted in Barrett that the statutory provision allowing a GBMI finding to be made regardless of whether the defendant *90 placed mental health in issue, AS 12.47.060, did not “figure in this appeal.”
Hastings v. State, 736 P.2d 1157 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987). “A defendant found guilty but mentally ill is not relieved of criminal responsibility for criminal conduct and is subject to the provisions of AS 12.47.050. The defendant has the burden of proving that he was guilty but mentally ill by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Washington v. State, 828 P.2d 172 (Alaska Ct. App. 1992). “See AS 12.47.060. In imposing sentence, Judge Johnstone concluded that Washington deliberately created a situation that he knew would result in the police being summoned, and then shot Officer Mizelle, knowing that he was a police officer and intending to kill him.”
Lane v. State, 382 P.3d 1188 (Alaska Ct. App. 2016). “Instead, Lane was simply found “guilty” at his trial—and then Lane’s attorney filed a post-trial motion under AS 12.47.060, asking the superior court to enter “guilty but mentally ill” verdicts instead of the “guilty” verdicts that the jury had reached.”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.47.060(a) — 3 cases
Hastings v. State, 736 P.2d 1157 (Alaska Ct. App. 1987). “A defendant found guilty but mentally ill is not relieved of criminal responsibility for criminal conduct and is subject to the provisions of AS 12.47.050. The defendant has the burden of proving that he was guilty but mentally ill by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State v. Clifton, 315 P.3d 694 (Alaska Ct. App. 2013). “In response, the prosecutor suggested that the State might invoke the procedure codified in the pre-2012 version of AS 12.47.060. This statute applied to cases where a defendant suffering from a.”
Lewis v. State, 195 P.3d 622 (Alaska Ct. App. 2008). “In that case, the defense attorney acknowledged, AS 12.47.060 would allow the State to bring up the issue of Lewis's mental illness in a post-verdict proceeding to determine whether the verdict should be amended to "guilty but mentally ill".”
— Alaska Stat. § 12.47.060(b) — 1 case
State v. Clifton, 315 P.3d 694 (Alaska Ct. App. 2013). “In response, the prosecutor suggested that the State might invoke the procedure codified in the pre-2012 version of AS 12.47.060. This statute applied to cases where a defendant suffering from a.”
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.