Idaho Code § 19-2522
Examination of defendant for evidence of mental condition — Appointment of psychiatrists or licensed psychologists — Hospitalization — Reports.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Examination of defendant for evidence of mental condition — Appointment of psychiatrists or licensed psychologists — Hospitalization — Reports.
(1) If there is reason to believe the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at sentencing and for good cause shown, the court shall appoint at least one (1) psychiatrist or licensed psychologist to examine and report upon the mental condition of the defendant. 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. The order appointing or requesting the designation of a psychiatrist or licensed psychologist shall specify the issues to be resolved for which the examiner is appointed or designated.
(2) In making such examination, any method may be employed which is accepted by the examiner’s profession for the examination of those alleged to be suffering from a mental illness or defect.
(3) The report of the examination shall include the following:
(a) A description of the nature of the examination;
(b) A diagnosis, evaluation or prognosis of the mental condition of the defendant;
(c) An analysis of the degree of the defendant’s illness or defect and level of functional impairment;
(d) A consideration of whether treatment is available for the defendant’s mental condition;
(e) An analysis of the relative risks and benefits of treatment or nontreatment;
(f) A consideration of the risk of danger which the defendant may create for the public if at large.
(4) The report of the examination shall be filed in triplicate with the clerk of the court, who shall cause copies to be delivered to the prosecuting attorney and to counsel for the defendant.
(5) When the defendant wishes to be examined by an expert of his own choice, such examiner shall be permitted to have reasonable access to the defendant for the purpose of examination.
(6) If a mental health examination of the defendant has previously been conducted, whether pursuant to section 19-2524, Idaho Code, or for any other purpose, and a report of such examination has been submitted to the court, and if the court determines that such examination and report provide the necessary information required in subsection (3) of this section, and the examination is sufficiently recent to reflect the defendant’s present mental condition, then the court may consider such prior examination and report as the examination and report required by this section and need not order an additional examination of the defendant’s mental condition. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to examinations and reports performed or prepared pursuant to section 18-211 or 18-212, Idaho Code, for the purpose of determining the defendant’s fitness to proceed, unless the defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently consents to having such examination and report used at sentencing.
(7) Nothing in this section is intended to limit the consideration of other evidence relevant to the imposition of sentence.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 62
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1985–2021 · leading case: State v. Payne
State v. Payne (2008)
“Idaho Code § 19-2522 provides that if there "is reason to believe the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at sentencing .”
State v. Hanson (2012)
“At the second sentencing hearing, Hanson requested that the district court order a psychological evaluation pursuant to I.C. § 19-2522. The district court denied Hanson’s request for a psychological evaluation, reasoning that Hanson could not invoke his Fifth Amendment right…”
State v. Durham (2008)
“The legal standards governing the court’s decision whether to order a psychological evaluation are contained in I.C. § 19-2522. Pursuant to I.C. § 19-2522(1), if there is reason to believe that the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at sentencing and…”
State v. Tyler Ray Carter (2013)
“He also asserts that the district court committed error when it failed to sua sponte order a psychological evaluation pursuant to Idaho Code § 19-2522 . 1 The Court of Appeals, applying the Perry 2 fundamental error test, held that there was no violation of Carter’s Fifth…”
State v. McFarland (1994)
“Idaho Code § 19-2522 (1) provides in part: If there is reason to believe the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at sentencing and for good cause shown, the court shall appoint at least one psychiatrist or licensed psychologist to examine and report…”
State v. Banbury (2007)
“ANALYSIS Idaho Code § 19-2522 (1) provides that if there is reason to believe that the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at sentencing, the sentencing court must appoint a psychiatrist or psychologist to examine and report upon the defendant’s mental…”
State v. JOCKUMSEN (2010)
“Lack of a Mental Health Evaluation for Sentencing Purposes Idaho Code § 19-2522 specifies that “[i]f there is reason to believe the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at sentencing and for good cause shown,” the court must appoint a psychiatrist or…”
State v. Hoffman (1993)
“Sanford, a licensed psychologist, to examine Hoffman in response to a motion filed by Hoffman requesting an examination under I.C. § 19-2522. Hoffman, however, chose not to disclose Dr.”
State v. Whipple (2000)
“§§ 19-2522 AND 19-2523 Idaho Code §§ 19-2522 provides that a psychological evaluation and report is mandatory “if there is reason to believe the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at sentencing and for good cause shown.”
State v. James Darnell Black (2017)
“Idaho Code § 19-2522 (1) specifies that “if there is reason to believe the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at sentencing and for good cause shown,” the court must appoint a psychiatrist or psychologist to evaluate and report upon the defendant’s…”
State v. Craner (2002)
“The legal standards governing the court’s decision whether to order a psychological evaluation and report are contained in I.C. § 19-2522. Pursuant to I.C. § 19-2522(1), if there is reason to believe that the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at…”
State v. Rollins (2011)
“Idaho Code § 19-2522 sets forth the standards governing, for sentencing purposes, when psychological evaluations are to be ordered, the contents of the evaluation, and procedures governing evaluations.”
— Idaho Code § 19-2522(1) — 29 cases
State v. Payne (2008)
“Idaho Code § 19-2522 provides that if there "is reason to believe the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at sentencing .”
State v. Hoffman (1993)
“Sanford, a licensed psychologist, to examine Hoffman in response to a motion filed by Hoffman requesting an examination under I.C. § 19-2522. Hoffman, however, chose not to disclose Dr.”
State v. Hanson (2012)
“At the second sentencing hearing, Hanson requested that the district court order a psychological evaluation pursuant to I.C. § 19-2522. The district court denied Hanson’s request for a psychological evaluation, reasoning that Hanson could not invoke his Fifth Amendment right…”
State v. Durham (2008)
“The legal standards governing the court’s decision whether to order a psychological evaluation are contained in I.C. § 19-2522. Pursuant to I.C. § 19-2522(1), if there is reason to believe that the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at sentencing and…”
State v. Collins (2007)
— Idaho Code § 19-2522(3) — 24 cases
State v. Payne (2008)
“Idaho Code § 19-2522 provides that if there "is reason to believe the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at sentencing .”
State v. Durham (2008)
“The legal standards governing the court’s decision whether to order a psychological evaluation are contained in I.C. § 19-2522. Pursuant to I.C. § 19-2522(1), if there is reason to believe that the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at sentencing and…”
State v. McFarland (1994)
“Idaho Code § 19-2522 (1) provides in part: If there is reason to believe the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at sentencing and for good cause shown, the court shall appoint at least one psychiatrist or licensed psychologist to examine and report…”
State v. James Darnell Black (2017)
“Idaho Code § 19-2522 (1) specifies that “if there is reason to believe the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at sentencing and for good cause shown,” the court must appoint a psychiatrist or psychologist to evaluate and report upon the defendant’s…”
State v. Craner (2002)
“The legal standards governing the court’s decision whether to order a psychological evaluation and report are contained in I.C. § 19-2522. Pursuant to I.C. § 19-2522(1), if there is reason to believe that the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at…”
— Idaho Code § 19-2522(3)(d) — 1 case
State v. Harper (1996)
— Idaho Code § 19-2522(3)(e) — 1 case
State v. Bridgett Lee Deluca (2012)
— Idaho Code § 19-2522(4) — 1 case
State v. Hanson (2012)
“At the second sentencing hearing, Hanson requested that the district court order a psychological evaluation pursuant to I.C. § 19-2522. The district court denied Hanson’s request for a psychological evaluation, reasoning that Hanson could not invoke his Fifth Amendment right…”
— Idaho Code § 19-2522(6) — 5 cases
State v. Payne (2008)
“Idaho Code § 19-2522 provides that if there "is reason to believe the mental condition of the defendant will be a significant factor at sentencing .”
State v. Hanson (2012)
“At the second sentencing hearing, Hanson requested that the district court order a psychological evaluation pursuant to I.C. § 19-2522. The district court denied Hanson’s request for a psychological evaluation, reasoning that Hanson could not invoke his Fifth Amendment right…”
Mendenhall v. State (2018)
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.