Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 19-2522 (2026)
Examination of defendant for evidence of mental condition — Appointment of psychiatrists or licensed psychologists — Hospitalization — Reports.
✓ current as of May 2026
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, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008).
State v. Clapp (Idaho Ct. App. 2021).
Cynthia Lord v. State of Alaska, 489 P.3d 374 (Alaska Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Williams, 479 P.3d 445 (Idaho Ct. App. 2020). “Williams claims the district court erred by failing to order a psychological evaluation under Idaho Code § 19-2522 and by imposing excessive sentences.”
State v. Turnage (Idaho Ct. App. 2019).
Rinke v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2018). “Failure to request psychological evaluation for sentencing purposes Idaho Code § 19-2522 (1) instructs district courts to appoint at least one psychiatrist or licensed psychologist to examine and report upon the mental condition of a defendant if there is reason to believe the…”
Mendenhall v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2018). “He argues the district court erred in summarily dismissing his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a psychological examination under Idaho Code § 19-2522 before sentencing. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.”
State v. Black (Idaho Ct. App. 2018). “Before sentencing, Black filed a pro se motion for a psychological evaluation pursuant to I.C. § 19-2522. In support of his motion, Black argued that his mental condition would be a significant factor at sentencing because he suffers from mild mental retardation, depression,…”
State v. James Darnell Black, 392 P.3d 45 (Idaho Ct. App. 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. Douglas B. Austin (Idaho Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Valentin Calvillo (Idaho Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Valentin Calvillo (Idaho Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Ryann D. Camperud (Idaho Ct. App. 2016).
— Idaho Code § 19-2522(1) — 29 cases
State v. Payne, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008).
State v. Hoffman, 851 P.2d 934 (Idaho 1993).
State v. Hanson, 271 P.3d 712 (Idaho 2012).
State v. Durham, 195 P.3d 723 (Idaho Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Collins, 162 P.3d 787 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007).
— Idaho Code § 19-2522(3) — 24 cases
State v. Payne, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008).
State v. Durham, 195 P.3d 723 (Idaho Ct. App. 2008).
State v. McFarland, 876 P.2d 158 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994).
State v. James Darnell Black, 392 P.3d 45 (Idaho Ct. App. 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, 45 P.3d 844 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002).
— Idaho Code § 19-2522(3)(d) — 1 case
State v. Harper, 922 P.2d 383 (Idaho 1996).
— Idaho Code § 19-2522(3)(e) — 1 case
State v. Bridgett Lee Deluca (Idaho Ct. App. 2012).
— Idaho Code § 19-2522(4) — 1 case
State v. Hanson, 271 P.3d 712 (Idaho 2012).
— Idaho Code § 19-2522(6) — 5 cases
State v. Payne, 199 P.3d 123 (Idaho 2008).
State v. Hanson, 271 P.3d 712 (Idaho 2012).
State of Idaho v. Darrell Edward Payne (Idaho 2008).
State v. Joseph Richard Clinton (Idaho Ct. App. 2012).
Mendenhall v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2018). “He argues the district court erred in summarily dismissing his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to obtain a psychological examination under Idaho Code § 19-2522 before sentencing. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.”
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.