(a)The defense of diminished capacity is hereby abolished. In a criminal action, as well as any juvenile court proceeding, evidence concerning an accused person’s intoxication, trauma, mental illness, disease, or defect shall not be admissible to show or negate capacity to form the particular purpose, intent, motive, malice aforethought, knowledge, or other mental state required for the commission of the crime charged.
(b)In any criminal proceeding, including any juvenile court proceeding, in which a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is entered, this defense shall be found by the trier of fact only when the accused person proves by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she was incapable of knowing or understanding the nature and quality of his or her act and of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense.
(c)Notwithstanding the foregoing, evidence of diminished capacity or of a mental disorder may be considered by the court only at the time of sentencing or other disposition or commitment.
(d)The provisions of this section shall not be amended by the Legislature except by statute passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
54
cases (
11 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case:
Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006).
Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006).
· cites it 3× “Code §35 -41—3—6(b) (West 2004) (excluding from definition of “mental disease or defect” “abnormality manifested only by repeated unlawful or antisocial conduct”).”
People v. Skinner, 704 P.2d 752 (Cal. 1985).
· cites it 4× “" (Pen. Code, § 25, subd. (b) [hereafter section 25(b)], italics added.”
Knowles v. Mirzayance, 556 U.S. 111 (2009).
“act and of distinguishing right from wrong at the time of the commission of the offense,’ Cal. Penal Code § 25 (b) “Any remaining chance of securing an NGI verdict .”
People v. Hernandez, 994 P.2d 354 (Cal. 2000).
· cites it 4× “(Pen.Code, § 25, subd. (b); People v. Skinner (1985) 39 Cal.”
In Re Scott, 61 P.3d 402 (Cal. 2003).
· cites it 2× “) The only possible mental defenses would have been (1) insanity, i.e., that at the time of the crime, petitioner either could not know or understand the nature and quality of the act, or could not distinguish right from wrong (Pen.”
People v. Coddington, 2 P.3d 1081 (Cal. 2000).
· cites it 2× “" (Pen.Code, § 25, subd. (b); see generally People v.”
Mickey v. Ayers, 606 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “2d 659 (1969); see Cal.Penal Code § 25(a) (abolishing diminished capacity defense for crimes committed after 1982).”
People v. Horn, 158 Cal. App. 3d 1014 (Cal. Ct. App. 1984).
· cites it 4× “" (Pen. Code, § 25, subd. (b), italics added.”
Kahler v. Kansas, 589 U.S. 271 (2020).
“" Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 25(b) (West 2014).”
State v. Herrera, 1999 UT 64 (Utah 1999).
· cites it 2× “[9] In this appeal, Herrera merely repeats his prior assertions concerning the compelled mental examination procedures and fails to articulate how his rights against self-incrimination were in any way violated by those procedures as applied to him.”
People v. Avena, 916 P.2d 1000 (Cal. 1996).
“2d 588 ]; Pen. Code, §§ 25, 28; see generally, 1 Witkin & Epstein, Cal.”
People v. Valdez, 2022 IL App (1st) 181463 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022).
“, Cal. Penal Code § 25 (a) (West 2020). Some courts have disallowed it by supreme court decision.”
— Cal. Penal Code § 25(a) — 7 cases
Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006).
“Code §35 -41—3—6(b) (West 2004) (excluding from definition of “mental disease or defect” “abnormality manifested only by repeated unlawful or antisocial conduct”).”
Mickey v. Ayers, 606 F.3d 1223 (9th Cir. 2010).
“2d 659 (1969); see Cal.Penal Code § 25(a) (abolishing diminished capacity defense for crimes committed after 1982).”
— Cal. Penal Code § 25(b) — 9 cases
Kahler v. Kansas, 589 U.S. 271 (2020).
“" Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 25(b) (West 2014).”
State v. Herrera, 1999 UT 64 (Utah 1999).
“[9] In this appeal, Herrera merely repeats his prior assertions concerning the compelled mental examination procedures and fails to articulate how his rights against self-incrimination were in any way violated by those procedures as applied to him.”
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.