Florida Statute 775.027 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research

The 2024 Florida Statutes

Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 775
GENERAL PENALTIES; REGISTRATION OF CRIMINALS

View Entire Chapter

F.S. 775.027

775.027 Insanity defense.—

(1) AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE.—All persons are presumed to be sane. It is an affirmative defense to a criminal prosecution that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant was insane. Insanity is established when:

(a) The defendant had a mental infirmity, disease, or defect; and

(b) Because of this condition, the defendant:

1. Did not know what he or she was doing or its consequences; or

2. Although the defendant knew what he or she was doing and its consequences, the defendant did not know that what he or she was doing was wrong.

Mental infirmity, disease, or defect does not constitute a defense of insanity except as provided in this subsection.

(2) BURDEN OF PROOF.—The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence.

History.—s. 1, ch. 2000-315.

F.S. 775.027 on Google Scholar

F.S. 775.027 on Casetext

Amendments to 775.027

Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 775.027

Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 775.027.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases Citing Statute 775.027

Total Results: 15

Reynolds v. State of Florida and Department of Children and Families

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2024-05-02

Snippet: All individuals are presumed sane. See § 775.027(1), Fla. Stat. As a result, insanity is an affirmative

KENNETH PEREZ v. STATE OF FLORIDA

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2018-09-21

Snippet: not result in insanity, as defined by section 775.027, Florida Statutes (2013), is not a defense. See

State v. Anthony M. Jackson

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2016-11-10

Citation: 204 So. 3d 958, 2016 Fla. App. LEXIS 17109

Snippet: to not understand that the conduct was wrong, § 775.027, Fla, Stat. (2007). 10 . At trial

Harriman v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-08-24

Citation: 174 So. 3d 1044, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12651, 2015 WL 4999013

Snippet: burden of proof on affirmative defenses. See § 775.027(2), Fla. Stat. (2014) ("The defendant has the burden

Rodriguez v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2015-08-14

Citation: 172 So. 3d 540, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 12032, 2015 WL 4769380

Snippet: 2000, the M’Naghten Rule was codified in section 775.027, Florida Statutes, which provides: (1) AFFIRMATIVE

Gilbert Dudley, III v. State of Florida

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2014-05-15

Citation: 139 So. 3d 273, 39 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 335, 2014 WL 1923782, 2014 Fla. LEXIS 1625

Snippet: insanity except as provided in this subsection. § 775.027, Fla. Stat. (2013). By contrast, the term “mentally

Hernandez v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2013-03-20

Citation: 117 So. 3d 778, 2013 WL 1136434, 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 4431

Snippet: understanding that his actions were morally wrong. § 775.027(1), Fla. Stat. (2004).

Cotto v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-05-30

Citation: 89 So. 3d 1025, 2012 WL 1934438, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8621

Snippet: of insanity, and which is codified in section 775.027, Florida Statutes (2005). . This Court takes

Wimberly v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2012-05-23

Citation: 118 So. 3d 816, 2012 WL 1859198, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 8256

Snippet: unconstitutional, as applied to juveniles, section 775.027, Florida Statutes (2008), which defines the standard

Del Valle v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2011-12-15

Citation: 80 So. 3d 999, 36 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 732, 2011 Fla. LEXIS 2878, 2011 WL 6220783

Snippet: burden when attempting to prove that defense. See § 775.027, Fla. Stat. (2011) (“The defendant has the burden

Brown v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2008-11-06

Citation: 994 So. 2d 480, 2008 WL 4809898

Snippet: that what he or she was doing was wrong. . . . § 775.027(1), Fla. Stat. (2006) (emphasis added). See also

State v. Rogers

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2007-05-09

Citation: 955 So. 2d 1213, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 7116, 2007 WL 1342467

Snippet: the state’s ability to prosecute. Under section 775.027(2), Florida Statutes (2000), the burden of proving

Coday v. State

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2006-10-26

Citation: 946 So. 2d 988, 2006 WL 3028248

Snippet: know that what he or she was doing was wrong. § 775.027, Fla. Stat. (2005). [5] Because we are vacating

In Re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases (No. 2005-5).

Court: Supreme Court of Florida | Date Filed: 2006-09-28

Citation: 939 So. 2d 1052, 31 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 607, 2006 Fla. LEXIS 2260, 2006 WL 2771525

Snippet: Fla. In 2000, the Legislature enacted section 775.027, Florida Statutes, which became law on June 19

Brown v. State

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida | Date Filed: 2001-08-22

Citation: 798 So. 2d 773, 2001 WL 953535

Snippet: premature. Mr. Brown's demand was filed November *775 27, 2000. He was entitled to file his notice of expiration