A. A person may be found guilty except insane if at the time of the commission of the criminal act the person was afflicted with a mental disease or defect of such severity that the person did not know the criminal act was wrong. A mental disease or defect constituting legal insanity is an affirmative defense. Mental disease or defect does not include disorders that result from acute voluntary intoxication or withdrawal from alcohol or drugs, character defects, psychosexual disorders or impulse control disorders. Conditions that do not constitute legal insanity include momentary, temporary conditions arising from the pressure of the circumstances, moral decadence, depravity or passion growing out of anger, jealousy, revenge, hatred or other motives in a person who does not suffer from a mental disease or defect or an abnormality that is manifested only by criminal conduct.
B. In a case involving the death or serious physical injury of or the threat of death or serious physical injury to another person, if a plea of insanity is made and the court determines that a reasonable basis exists to support the plea, the court may commit the defendant to a secure state mental health facility under the department of health services, a secure county mental health evaluation and treatment facility or another secure licensed mental health facility for up to thirty days for mental health evaluation and treatment. Experts at the mental health facility who are licensed pursuant to title 32, who are familiar with this state's insanity statutes, who are specialists in mental diseases and defects and who are knowledgeable concerning insanity shall observe and evaluate the defendant. The expert or experts who examine the defendant shall submit a written report of the evaluation to the court, the defendant's attorney and the prosecutor. The court shall order the defendant to pay the costs of the mental health facility to the clerk of the court. The clerk of the court shall transmit the reimbursements to the mental health facility for all of its costs. If the court finds the defendant is indigent or otherwise is unable to pay all or any of the costs, the court shall order the county to reimburse the mental health facility for the remainder of the costs. Notwithstanding section 36-545.02, the mental health facility may maintain the reimbursements. If the court does not commit the defendant to a secure state mental health facility, a secure county mental health evaluation and treatment facility or another secure licensed mental health facility, the court shall appoint an independent expert who is licensed pursuant to title 32, who is familiar with this state's insanity statutes, who is a specialist in mental diseases and defects and who is knowledgeable concerning insanity to observe and evaluate the defendant. The expert who examines the defendant shall submit a written report of the evaluation to the court, the defendant's attorney and the prosecutor. The court shall order the defendant to pay the costs of the services of the independent expert to the clerk of the court. The clerk of the court shall transmit the reimbursements to the expert. If the court finds the defendant is indigent or otherwise unable to pay all or any of the costs, the court shall order the county to reimburse the expert for the remainder of the costs. This subsection does not prohibit the defendant or this state from obtaining additional psychiatric examinations by other mental health experts who are licensed pursuant to title 32, who are familiar with this state's insanity statutes, who are specialists in mental diseases and defects and who are knowledgeable concerning insanity.
C. The defendant shall prove the defendant's legal insanity by clear and convincing evidence.
D. If the finder of fact finds the defendant guilty except insane, the court shall determine the sentence the defendant could have received pursuant to section 13-707 or section 13-751, subsection A or the presumptive sentence the defendant could have received pursuant to section 13-702, section 13-703, section 13-704, section 13-705, section 13-706, subsection A, section 13-710 or section 13-1406 if the defendant had not been found insane, and the judge shall suspend the sentence and shall order the defendant to be placed and remain under the jurisdiction of the superior court and committed to a secure state mental health facility under the department of health services pursuant to section 13-3992 for the length of that sentence. In making this determination the court shall not consider the sentence enhancements for prior convictions under section 13-703 or 13-704. The court shall expressly identify each act that the defendant committed and separately find whether each act involved the death or physical injury of or a substantial threat of death or physical injury to another person.
E. A guilty except insane verdict is not a criminal conviction for sentencing enhancement purposes under section 13-703 or 13-704.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
127
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case:
State v. Moody, 94 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. 2004).
State v. Moody, 94 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. 2004).
· cites it 8× “See A.R.S. § 13-502(A). As in Lara , no expert testimony here suggested that Moody's actions were not performed consciously and as a result of effort and determination.”
State v. Roque, 141 P.3d 368 (Ariz. 2006).
· cites it 10× “” Roque now argues that the jury should have been instructed to consider whether his belief that he was commanded by God to kill negated any understanding that his acts were “wrongful” under Arizona’s insanity statute, A.R.S. § 13-502 (2001). Specifically, Roque argues that the…”
Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006).
· cites it 8× “” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §13-502 (West 1978).”
State v. Fletcher, 717 P.2d 866 (Ariz. 1986).
· cites it 20× “Although it must be conceded that the constitutionality of the new statute was not raised, we did not indicate any objection to the new provisions of A.R.S. § 13-502. Insanity is an affirmative defense in criminal law.”
State v. Tamplin, 986 P.2d 914 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 19× “Under that test, codified in 1977 in former A.R.S. § 13-502, 2 a defendant could be found legally insane if, at the time of the criminal act, he had “(1) [s]uch a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act, or (2)[i]f he did know [the nature and quality of…”
State v. King, 763 P.2d 239 (Ariz. 1988).
· cites it 12× “See A.R.S. § 13-502. Defendant offered trial testimony from two psychiatrists.”
State v. Mott, 931 P.2d 1046 (Ariz. 1997).
· cites it 8× “See A.R.S. § 13-502. But it is quite apparent that Defendant is not advancing the affirmative defense of diminished capacity.”
State v. Romero, 463 P.3d 225 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 14× “” ¶4 As an affirmative defense, Romero sought to prove he was GEI under A.R.S. § 13-502, which states that “[a] person may be found [GEI] if at the time of the commission of the criminal act the person was afflicted with a mental disease or defect of such severity that the…”
State v. Bay, 722 P.2d 280 (Ariz. 1986).
· cites it 16× “R.S. [1] was adequately complied with by defendant considering the trial court's customary procedure in chambers.”
State v. McKeon, 38 P.3d 1236 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 12× “The legislature added a new § 13-502 that, among other changes, deleted previous language that allowed an insanity defense to be based on a defect of reason such that the person did not know the nature and quality of the act [4] and codified the existing case law by excluding…”
State v. Turrentine, 730 P.2d 238 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 11× “A.R.S. § 13-502 is unconstitutional because it shifts the burden of proof from the state to the defendant and the burden remains with the defendant throughout the trial.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-502(A) — 44 cases
State v. Moody, 94 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. 2004).
“See A.R.S. § 13-502(A). As in Lara , no expert testimony here suggested that Moody's actions were not performed consciously and as a result of effort and determination.”
State v. Tamplin, 986 P.2d 914 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
“Under that test, codified in 1977 in former A.R.S. § 13-502, 2 a defendant could be found legally insane if, at the time of the criminal act, he had “(1) [s]uch a defect of reason as not to know the nature and quality of the act, or (2)[i]f he did know [the nature and quality of…”
State v. Mott, 931 P.2d 1046 (Ariz. 1997).
“See A.R.S. § 13-502. But it is quite apparent that Defendant is not advancing the affirmative defense of diminished capacity.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-502(A)(1) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-502(B) — 25 cases
State v. Fletcher, 717 P.2d 866 (Ariz. 1986).
“Although it must be conceded that the constitutionality of the new statute was not raised, we did not indicate any objection to the new provisions of A.R.S. § 13-502. Insanity is an affirmative defense in criminal law.”
State v. Moody, 94 P.3d 1119 (Ariz. 2004).
“See A.R.S. § 13-502(A). As in Lara , no expert testimony here suggested that Moody's actions were not performed consciously and as a result of effort and determination.”
State v. King, 763 P.2d 239 (Ariz. 1988).
“See A.R.S. § 13-502. Defendant offered trial testimony from two psychiatrists.”
State v. Bay, 722 P.2d 280 (Ariz. 1986).
“R.S. [1] was adequately complied with by defendant considering the trial court's customary procedure in chambers.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-502(C) — 2 cases
State v. Roque, 141 P.3d 368 (Ariz. 2006).
“” Roque now argues that the jury should have been instructed to consider whether his belief that he was commanded by God to kill negated any understanding that his acts were “wrongful” under Arizona’s insanity statute, A.R.S. § 13-502 (2001). Specifically, Roque argues that the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-502(D) — 13 cases
State v. Romero, 463 P.3d 225 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“” ¶4 As an affirmative defense, Romero sought to prove he was GEI under A.R.S. § 13-502, which states that “[a] person may be found [GEI] if at the time of the commission of the criminal act the person was afflicted with a mental disease or defect of such severity that the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-502(E) — 3 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-502(c) — 2 cases
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.