Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2026 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lawrence v. Stategreen2 sentences2020The delusional compulsion defense is available only when the defendant is “suffering under delusions of an absurd and unfounded nature [and] was compelled by that delusion to act in a manner that would have been lawful and right if the facts had been as the defendant imagined them to be.” (Footnote omitted.) Lawrence v. State, 265 Ga. 310, 313 (2) ( 454 SE2d 446 ) (1995). 2020The delusional compulsion defense is available only when the defendant is “suffering under delusions of an absurd and unfounded nature [and] was compelled by that delusion to act in a manner that would have been lawful and right if the facts had been as the defendant imagined them to be.” (Footnote omitted.) Lawrence v. State, 265 Ga. 310, 313 (2) ( 454 SE2d 446 ) (1995). | 1 | 3 |
Webb v. Stategreen1 sentence2026“A finding of insanity based upon OCGA § 16-3-3 requires proof that (1) the accused acted under a delusional compulsion; (2) the criminal act was connected with the delusion; and (3) the delusion related to a fact which, if true, would have justified the act.” Webb v. State, 270 Ga. 556, 557 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
Hudson v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Hudson, 308 Ga. at 445 . | 1 | 1 |
Hood v. Stategreen1 sentence2026The 4 delusional compulsion defense is available only when the defendant “was compelled by his delusion to act in a manner that would have been lawful and right if the facts had been as he imagined them to be.” Hood v. State, 311 Ga. 855, 868 (2021) (cleaned up). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2026Painter resists this conclusion, arguing that, as in Brown v. State, 228 Ga. 215, 217 (1971), the murder here was “so utterly senseless and abnormal as to furnish satisfactory proof of a diseased mind” as to entitle him to an instruction to this effect, as well as on the delusional compulsion defense. 2026See id. at 216– 19. (“[W]here a continuing adulterous affair exists, as opposed to mere past acts of misconduct, if a jury believes the killing was done to prevent future misconduct, an acquittal is authorized.”).4 But here, Painter does not point to any such evidence showing 4 We express no opinion as to whether Brown was correctly decided. | 1 | 1 |
Brookins v. Stategreen1 sentence2026See Brookins v. State, 315 Ga. 86 , 98–99 (2022) (highlighting distinction between the two forms of an insanity defense). | 1 | 1 |
Mooney v. Webstergreen1 sentence2025See Mooney, 300 Ga. at 288-289 (“This Court is mindful of the long-recognized doctrine of statutory construction, expressio unius 28 est exclusio alterius, which discourages judicial recognition of excep- tions not specifically set forth in a legislative enactment when other exceptions are expressly stated.” (emphasis added)). | 1 | 1 |
Bennett v. Stategreen1 sentence2025See Bennett, 262 Ga. 149, 152 (1992) (holding that the trial court “properly refused” to give the charge used in Brown where the court gave “a charge on the insanity defense,” and that charge was “sufficient”). | 1 | 1 |
McClure v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Georgia’s insanity defenses are “affirmative defenses.” See McClure v. State, 306 Ga. 856, 857-858 (1) (834 SE2d 96) (2019) (noting that many affirmative defenses are found in Chapter 3 of Georgia’s Criminal Code, where the insanity defenses are codified); Jackson v. State, 301 Ga. 878, 881 (3) (804 SE2d 357) (2017) (discussing a defendant’s burden to prove the “affirmative defense of insanity”). 2022Georgia’s insanity defenses are “affirmative defenses.” See McClure v. State, 306 Ga. 856, 857-858 (1) ( 834 SE2d 96 ) (2019) (noting that many affirmative defenses are found in Chapter 3 of Georgia’s Criminal Code, where the insanity defenses are codified); Jackson v. State, 301 Ga. 878, 881 (3) ( 804 SE2d 357 ) (2017) (discussing a defendant’s burden to prove the “affirmative defense of insanity”). | 1 | 1 |
McELRATH v. Stategreen2 sentences2022The delusional-compulsion defense applies only when a defendant both “suffer[ed] under delusions of an absurd and unfounded nature” and “was compelled by that delusion to act in a 8 manner that would have been lawful and right if the facts had been as the defendant imagined them to be.” McElrath v. State, 308 Ga. 104, 107 (1) (b) (839 SE2d 573) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). 2022The delusional-compulsion defense applies only when a defendant both “suffer[ed] under delusions of an absurd and unfounded nature” and “was compelled by that delusion to act in a 8 manner that would have been lawful and right if the facts had been as the defendant imagined them to be.” McElrath v. State, 308 Ga. 104, 107 (1) (b) (839 SE2d 573) (2020) (citation and punctuation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2022Georgia’s insanity defenses are “affirmative defenses.” See McClure v. State, 306 Ga. 856, 857-858 (1) (834 SE2d 96) (2019) (noting that many affirmative defenses are found in Chapter 3 of Georgia’s Criminal Code, where the insanity defenses are codified); Jackson v. State, 301 Ga. 878, 881 (3) (804 SE2d 357) (2017) (discussing a defendant’s burden to prove the “affirmative defense of insanity”). 2022Georgia’s insanity defenses are “affirmative defenses.” See McClure v. State, 306 Ga. 856, 857-858 (1) (834 SE2d 96) (2019) (noting that many affirmative defenses are found in Chapter 3 of Georgia’s Criminal Code, where the insanity defenses are codified); Jackson v. State, 301 Ga. 878, 881 (3) (804 SE2d 357) (2017) (discussing a defendant’s burden to prove the “affirmative defense of insanity”). | 1 | 1 |
Stevens v. Stategreen2 sentences1997OCGA § 16-3-3 provides: “[a] person shall not be found guilty of a crime when, at the time of the act, . . . the person, because of mental disease, injury, or congenital deficiency, acted as he did because of a delusional compulsion as to such act which overmastered his will, to resist committing the crime.” Three elements comprise the defense: “(1) that the defendant was laboring under a delusion; (2) that the criminal act was connected with the delusion under which the defendant was laboring; and (3) that the delusion was as to a fact which, if true, would have justified the act. [Cit.]” Ste 1997OCGA § 16-3-3 provides: “[a] person shall not be found guilty of a crime when, at the time of the act, . . . the person, because of mental disease, injury, or congenital deficiency, acted as he did because of a delusional compulsion as to such act which overmastered his will, to resist committing the crime.” Three elements comprise the defense: “(1) that the defendant was laboring under a delusion; (2) that the criminal act was connected with the delusion under which the defendant was laboring; and (3) that the delusion was as to a fact which, if true, would have justified the act. [Cit.]” Ste | 1 | 1 |
Graham v. Stategreen2 sentences1987See generally Graham v. State, 236 Ga. 378, 379-382 ( 223 SE2d 803 ) (1976). 1987See generally Graham v. State, 236 Ga. 378, 379-382 ( 223 SE2d 803 ) (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Choice v. Stategreen1 sentence1981We quote from the charge in Choice v. State, 31 Ga. 424, 454-455 (1860): “[T]hough it is the general rule that insanity is ordinarily an excuse, yet there is an exception to this rule, and that is, when the crime is committed by a party in a fit of intoxication... | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dixon v. State
green
1 sentence2026Contrary to Lett’s claim, we have been clear that the State does not have to disprove insanity beyond a reasonable doubt “because the law presumes sanity[,] [and thus] no new burden of proof is imposed on the State by an affirmative plea of insanity.” Id. 9 As stated above, and contrary to Lett’s claim, the trial court did not charge the jury on the delusional compulsion defense under OCGA § 16-3-3 because it determined that no evidence was presented to support the charge, and Lett does not enumerate that ruling by the trial court as error on appeal. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Wierson
green
1 sentence2026Wierson, 321 Ga. at 597 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Hill v. State
green
2 sentences2012Finally, even assuming the charge on no duty to retreat should have been given sua sponte by the trial court, the failure to give the charge does not amount to plain error since self-defense was not appellant’s sole defense (compare Hill v. State, 310 Ga. App. 695 (2) ( 713 SE2d 891 ) (2011)), and the trial court instructed the jury on the law of justification and self-defense. 2012Finally, even assuming the charge on no duty to retreat should have been given sua sponte by the trial court, the failure to give the charge does not amount to plain error since self-defense was not appellant’s sole defense (compare Hill v. State, 310 Ga. App. 695 (2) ( 713 SE2d 891 ) (2011)), and the trial court instructed the jury on the law of justification and self-defense. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.