Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 18-207 (2026)

Mental condition not a defense — Provision for treatment during incarceration — Reception of evidence — Notice and appointment of expert examiners. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Mental condition not a defense — Provision for treatment during incarceration — Reception of evidence — Notice and appointment of expert examiners. 

(1) Mental condition shall not be a defense to any charge of criminal conduct.

(2)  If by the provisions of section 19-2523, Idaho Code, the court finds that one convicted of crime suffers from any mental condition requiring treatment, such person shall be committed to the board of correction or such city or county official as provided by law for placement in an appropriate facility for treatment, having regard for such conditions of security as the case may require. In the event a sentence of incarceration has been imposed, the defendant shall receive treatment in a facility which provides for incarceration or less restrictive confinement. In the event that a course of treatment thus commenced shall be concluded prior to the expiration of the sentence imposed, the offender shall remain liable for the remainder of such sentence, but shall have credit for time incarcerated for treatment.
(3)  Nothing herein is intended to prevent the admission of expert evidence on the issue of any state of mind which is an element of the offense, subject to the rules of evidence.
(4)  No court shall, over the objection of any party, receive the evidence of any expert witness on any issue of mental condition, or permit such evidence to be placed before a jury, unless such evidence is fully subject to the adversarial process in at least the following particulars:
(a)  Notice must be given at least ninety (90) days in advance of trial, or such other period as justice may require, that a party intends to raise any issue of mental condition and to call expert witnesses concerning such issue, failing which such witness shall not be permitted to testify until such time as the opposing party has a complete opportunity to consider the substance of such testimony and prepare for rebuttal through such opposing expert(s) as the party may choose.
(b)  A party who expects to call an expert witness to testify on an issue of mental condition must, on a schedule to be set by the court, furnish to the opposing party a written synopsis of the findings of such expert, or a copy of a written report. The court may authorize the taking of depositions to inquire further into the substance of such reports or synopses.
(c)  Raising an issue of mental condition in a criminal proceeding shall constitute a waiver of any privilege that might otherwise be interposed to bar the production of evidence on the subject and, upon request, the court shall order that the state’s experts shall have access to the defendant in such cases for the purpose of having its own experts conduct an examination in preparation for any legal proceeding at which the defendant’s mental condition may be in issue.
(d)  The court is authorized to appoint at least one (1) expert at public expense upon a showing by an indigent defendant that there is a need to inquire into questions of the defendant’s mental condition. The costs of examination shall be paid by the defendant if he is financially able. The determination of ability to pay shall be made in accordance with chapter 8, title 19, Idaho Code.
(e)  If an examination cannot be conducted by reason of the unwillingness of the defendant to cooperate, the examiner shall so advise the court in writing. In such cases the court may deny the party refusing to cooperate the right to present evidence in support of a mental status claim unless the interest of justice requires otherwise and shall instruct the jury that it may consider the party’s lack of cooperation for its effect on the credibility of the party’s mental status claim.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 74 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: State v. Payne, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Payne, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 104× “Idaho Code § 18-207 (4)(c) provides: (4) No court shall, over the objection of any party, receive the evidence of any expert witness on any issue of mental condition, or permit such evidence to be placed before a jury, unless such evidence is fully subject to the adversarial…”
State v. Samuel, 452 P.3d 768 (Idaho 2019). · cites it 82× “Disclosure of expert opinions regarding mental health must also comply with the requirements of Idaho Code § 18-207 . The defense is not required to produce any materials not subject to disclosure under subsection (h) of this Rule, or any material otherwise protected from…”
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). · cites it 46× “As we held in Payne, “I.C. § 18-207(4) is constitutional when applied to capital sentencing proceedings.”
State v. Card, 825 P.2d 1081 (Idaho 1991). · cites it 56× “Idaho Code § 18-207 removed the insanity defense as it existed previously [6] and reduced the issue of mental condition from the status of a formal defense to that of an evidentiary question.”
State v. Searcy, 798 P.2d 914 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 52× “Use of a firearm in the commission of murder and robbery — an enhancement of ten years; Searcy raised several issues on appeal, including the argument that I.C. § 18-207 [1] unconstitutionally deprived him of his right to due process by forbidding him to plead an independent…”
State v. Delling, 267 P.3d 709 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 56× “Idaho Code § 18-207 does not remove the element of criminal responsibility for the crime.”
State v. Beam, 710 P.2d 526 (Idaho 1985). · cites it 36× “Beam asserts the following errors: (1) that the Idaho death penalty scheme is unconstitutional; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence certain photographs of the victim's body; (3) that I.”
State v. Diaz, 507 P.3d 1109 (Idaho 2022). · cites it 34× “Under Idaho Code 18-207, Diaz notified the State of his intent to introduce expert testimony at trial.”
State v. McDougall, 749 P.2d 1025 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 56× “[2] Idaho Code § 18-207 (c) provides as follows: "Nothing herein is intended to prevent the admission of expert evidence on the issues of mens rea or any state of mind which is an element of the offense.”
State v. Winn, 828 P.2d 879 (Idaho 1992). · cites it 24× “Idaho Code § 18-207 still allows a defendant to present evidence of a mental condition so as to negate criminal intent.”
Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992). · cites it 4× “See Idaho Code § 18-207 (a) (1987) (mental condition not a defense to criminal charges); Mont.”
State v. Radue, 564 P.3d 1230 (Idaho 2025). · cites it 16× “I.C. § 18-207. Thus, Idaho Code section 18-207(3) does not “prevent the admission of expert evidence on the issue of any state of mind which is an element of the offense .”
Show all 74 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 18-207(1) — 13 cases
State v. Windom, 253 P.3d 310 (Idaho 2011).
State v. Beebe, 181 P.3d 496 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Samuel, 452 P.3d 768 (Idaho 2019). “Disclosure of expert opinions regarding mental health must also comply with the requirements of Idaho Code § 18-207 . The defense is not required to produce any materials not subject to disclosure under subsection (h) of this Rule, or any material otherwise protected from…”
State v. Shawn Nathan Fisher, 398 P.3d 839 (Idaho 2017).
State v. Oxford, 473 P.3d 784 (Idaho 2020).
— Idaho Code § 18-207(3) — 8 cases
State v. Diaz, 507 P.3d 1109 (Idaho 2022). “Under Idaho Code 18-207, Diaz notified the State of his intent to introduce expert testimony at trial.”
State v. Beebe, 181 P.3d 496 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Delling, 267 P.3d 709 (Idaho 2011). “Idaho Code § 18-207 does not remove the element of criminal responsibility for the crime.”
State v. Radue, 564 P.3d 1230 (Idaho 2025). “I.C. § 18-207. Thus, Idaho Code section 18-207(3) does not “prevent the admission of expert evidence on the issue of any state of mind which is an element of the offense .”
State v. Arrasmith, 966 P.2d 33 (Idaho Ct. App. 1998).
— Idaho Code § 18-207(4) — 3 cases
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “As we held in Payne, “I.C. § 18-207(4) is constitutional when applied to capital sentencing proceedings.”
State v. Samuel, 452 P.3d 768 (Idaho 2019). “Disclosure of expert opinions regarding mental health must also comply with the requirements of Idaho Code § 18-207 . The defense is not required to produce any materials not subject to disclosure under subsection (h) of this Rule, or any material otherwise protected from…”
State v. Santistevan, 148 P.3d 1273 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006).
— Idaho Code § 18-207(4)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Payne, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008). “Idaho Code § 18-207 (4)(c) provides: (4) No court shall, over the objection of any party, receive the evidence of any expert witness on any issue of mental condition, or permit such evidence to be placed before a jury, unless such evidence is fully subject to the adversarial…”
State v. Arrasmith, 966 P.2d 33 (Idaho Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Randall (Idaho Ct. App. 2024).
State of Idaho v. Darrell Edward Payne (Idaho 2008).
— Idaho Code § 18-207(4)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Arrasmith, 966 P.2d 33 (Idaho Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Randall (Idaho Ct. App. 2024).
— Idaho Code § 18-207(4)(c) — 5 cases
State v. Samuel, 452 P.3d 768 (Idaho 2019). “Disclosure of expert opinions regarding mental health must also comply with the requirements of Idaho Code § 18-207 . The defense is not required to produce any materials not subject to disclosure under subsection (h) of this Rule, or any material otherwise protected from…”
State v. Payne, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008). “Idaho Code § 18-207 (4)(c) provides: (4) No court shall, over the objection of any party, receive the evidence of any expert witness on any issue of mental condition, or permit such evidence to be placed before a jury, unless such evidence is fully subject to the adversarial…”
State v. Erik Virgil Hall, 419 P.3d 1042 (Idaho 2018). “As we held in Payne, “I.C. § 18-207(4) is constitutional when applied to capital sentencing proceedings.”
State v. Delling, 267 P.3d 709 (Idaho 2011). “Idaho Code § 18-207 does not remove the element of criminal responsibility for the crime.”
State of Idaho v. Darrell Edward Payne (Idaho 2008).
— Idaho Code § 18-207(a) — 8 cases
State v. Winn, 828 P.2d 879 (Idaho 1992). “Idaho Code § 18-207 still allows a defendant to present evidence of a mental condition so as to negate criminal intent.”
State v. Rhoades, 820 P.2d 665 (Idaho 1991).
State v. Rhoades, 822 P.2d 960 (Idaho 1991).
State v. Rhoades, 809 P.2d 455 (Idaho 1991).
State v. Delling, 267 P.3d 709 (Idaho 2011). “Idaho Code § 18-207 does not remove the element of criminal responsibility for the crime.”
— Idaho Code § 18-207(b) — 4 cases
State v. Card, 825 P.2d 1081 (Idaho 1991). “Idaho Code § 18-207 removed the insanity defense as it existed previously [6] and reduced the issue of mental condition from the status of a formal defense to that of an evidentiary question.”
State v. McDougall, 749 P.2d 1025 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). “[2] Idaho Code § 18-207 (c) provides as follows: "Nothing herein is intended to prevent the admission of expert evidence on the issues of mens rea or any state of mind which is an element of the offense.”
State v. Delling, 267 P.3d 709 (Idaho 2011). “Idaho Code § 18-207 does not remove the element of criminal responsibility for the crime.”
State v. Desjarlais, 714 P.2d 69 (Idaho Ct. App. 1986).
— Idaho Code § 18-207(c) — 7 cases
State v. McDougall, 749 P.2d 1025 (Idaho Ct. App. 1988). “[2] Idaho Code § 18-207 (c) provides as follows: "Nothing herein is intended to prevent the admission of expert evidence on the issues of mens rea or any state of mind which is an element of the offense.”
State v. Searcy, 798 P.2d 914 (Idaho 1990). “Use of a firearm in the commission of murder and robbery — an enhancement of ten years; Searcy raised several issues on appeal, including the argument that I.C. § 18-207 [1] unconstitutionally deprived him of his right to due process by forbidding him to plead an independent…”
State v. Beam, 710 P.2d 526 (Idaho 1985). “Beam asserts the following errors: (1) that the Idaho death penalty scheme is unconstitutional; (2) that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence certain photographs of the victim's body; (3) that I.”
State v. Winn, 828 P.2d 879 (Idaho 1992). “Idaho Code § 18-207 still allows a defendant to present evidence of a mental condition so as to negate criminal intent.”
State v. Diaz, 507 P.3d 1109 (Idaho 2022). “Under Idaho Code 18-207, Diaz notified the State of his intent to introduce expert testimony at trial.”
— Idaho Code § 18-207(e) — 1 case
State v. Patterson, 880 P.2d 257 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994).
— Idaho Code § 18-207(l) — 1 case
State v. Scroggie, 714 P.2d 72 (Idaho Ct. App. 1986).
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.