22-3219.
Notice and procedure; mental examination.
(1) Evidence of mental disease or defect excluding criminal responsibility is not admissible upon a trial unless the defendant serves upon the prosecuting attorney and files with the court a written notice of such defendant's intention to assert the defense that the defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect lacked the mental state required as an element of the offense charged. Such notice must be served and filed before trial and not more than 30 days after entry of the plea of not guilty to the information or indictment. For good cause shown the court may permit notice at a later date.
(2) A defendant who files a notice of intention to assert the defense that the defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect lacked the mental state required as an element of the offense charged thereby submits and consents to abide by such further orders as the court may make requiring the mental examination of the defendant and designating the place of examination and the physician or licensed psychologist by whom such examination shall be made. No order of the court respecting a mental examination shall preclude the defendant from procuring at such defendant's own expense an examination by a physician or licensed psychologist of such defendant's own choosing. A defendant requesting a mental examination pursuant to K.S.A. 22-4508, and amendments thereto, may request a physician or licensed psychologist of such defendant's own choosing. The judge shall inquire as to the estimated cost for such examination and shall appoint the requested physician or licensed psychologist if such physician or licensed psychologist agrees to accept compensation in an amount in accordance with the compensation standards set by the board of supervisors of panels to aid indigent defendants. A report of each mental examination of the defendant shall be filed in the court and copies thereof shall be supplied to the defendant and the prosecuting attorney.
History:
L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3219; L. 1977, ch. 120, § 1; L. 1989, ch. 92, § 34; L. 1993, ch. 247, § 1; L. 1995, ch. 251, § 25; January 1, 1996.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
58
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1977–2023 · leading case:
State v. Kleypas, 40 P.3d 139 (Kan. 2001).
State v. Kleypas, 40 P.3d 139 (Kan. 2001).
· cites it 14× “More specifically, the State argued that while Kleypas had initially notified the State under the provisions of K.S.A. 22-3219 that he would rely on evidence of a mental disease or defect excluding criminal responsibility, Kleypas later withdrew this notice.”
State v. Maestas, 316 P.3d 724 (Kan. 2014).
· cites it 12× “It also noted Maestas had failed to file a notice of intent to offer evidence of mental disease or defect excluding criminal responsibility as required by K.S.A. 22-3219. The State specifically argued any lay witness testimony about Maestas’ auditory hallucinations would be an…”
State v. Cheever, 284 P.3d 1007 (Kan. 2012).
· cites it 11× “2d 1176 (1992) (State was entitled to use court-ordered examination of defendant to rebut defendant’s insanity defense, despite the fact the examination was conducted without the benefit of Miranda warnings; under K.S.A. 22-3219, the defendant’s notice of intent to assert…”
State v. Hedges, 8 P.3d 1259 (Kan. 2000).
· cites it 8× “Pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3219, not more than 30 days after entry of a plea of not guilty, a defendant who intended to rely on the defense of insanity was required to give notice of such intention before trial.”
State v. Beuhler-May, 110 P.3d 425 (Kan. 2005).
· cites it 10× “Montolio’s report and testimony were being offered as evidence of a mental disease or defect which prevented Buehler-May from forming the requisite intent, then Buehler-May had failed to give the notice required by K.S.A. 22-3219. *378 If the evidence was not being offered to…”
State v. Williams, 85 P.3d 697 (Kan. 2004).
· cites it 5× “The required notice and procedure for a defense of mental disease or defect that would exclude criminal responsibility are set out in K.S.A. 22-3219. Subsection (1) requires service and filing within 30 days after entry of a not guilty plea of a written notice of a defendant’s…”
State v. Maas, 744 P.2d 1222 (Kan. 1987).
· cites it 8× “December 5, 1985 Defendant filed a notice of intent to rely on the insanity defense pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3219. *46 December 18, 1985 State filed motion for reciprocal discovery pursuant to K.”
State v. Bridges, 306 P.3d 244 (Kan. 2013).
· cites it 2× “The panel affirmed the district court decision to exclude the evidence because, among other things, Bridges failed to comply with the notice requirement of K.S.A. 22-3219. The panel also noted the district court’s exclusion on the additional basis that “the late identification…”
State v. White, 109 P.3d 1199 (Kan. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Does K.S.A. 22-3219 unconstitutionally abrogate the insanity defense? No.”
State v. Roberson, 38 P.3d 715 (Kan. 2002).
· cites it 4× “Roberson not only failed to object to the verdict form or the instructions, but his counsel specifically stated to the court that he was not raising an insanity defense under K.S.A. 22-3219, but rather lack of premeditation due to excessive use of crack cocaine.”
State v. McKinney, 961 P.2d 1 (Kan. 1998).
· cites it 2× “It would be reasonable to assume that defense counsel's preparation for trial included obtaining and studying the medical records from McKinney's hospitalization that ended immediately before he killed Barnett.”
State v. Williams, 884 P.2d 755 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 12× “The State claims K.S.A. 1993 Supp. 22-3219 required the release of this psychiatric report.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3219(1) — 10 cases
State v. Maestas, 316 P.3d 724 (Kan. 2014).
“It also noted Maestas had failed to file a notice of intent to offer evidence of mental disease or defect excluding criminal responsibility as required by K.S.A. 22-3219. The State specifically argued any lay witness testimony about Maestas’ auditory hallucinations would be an…”
State v. Cheever, 284 P.3d 1007 (Kan. 2012).
“2d 1176 (1992) (State was entitled to use court-ordered examination of defendant to rebut defendant’s insanity defense, despite the fact the examination was conducted without the benefit of Miranda warnings; under K.S.A. 22-3219, the defendant’s notice of intent to assert…”
State v. Beuhler-May, 110 P.3d 425 (Kan. 2005).
“Montolio’s report and testimony were being offered as evidence of a mental disease or defect which prevented Buehler-May from forming the requisite intent, then Buehler-May had failed to give the notice required by K.S.A. 22-3219. *378 If the evidence was not being offered to…”
State v. Bridges, 306 P.3d 244 (Kan. 2013).
“The panel affirmed the district court decision to exclude the evidence because, among other things, Bridges failed to comply with the notice requirement of K.S.A. 22-3219. The panel also noted the district court’s exclusion on the additional basis that “the late identification…”
State v. Hedges, 8 P.3d 1259 (Kan. 2000).
“Pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3219, not more than 30 days after entry of a plea of not guilty, a defendant who intended to rely on the defense of insanity was required to give notice of such intention before trial.”
— K.S.A. § 22-3219(2) — 13 cases
State v. Cheever, 284 P.3d 1007 (Kan. 2012).
“2d 1176 (1992) (State was entitled to use court-ordered examination of defendant to rebut defendant’s insanity defense, despite the fact the examination was conducted without the benefit of Miranda warnings; under K.S.A. 22-3219, the defendant’s notice of intent to assert…”
State v. Williams, 85 P.3d 697 (Kan. 2004).
“The required notice and procedure for a defense of mental disease or defect that would exclude criminal responsibility are set out in K.S.A. 22-3219. Subsection (1) requires service and filing within 30 days after entry of a not guilty plea of a written notice of a defendant’s…”
State v. Maas, 744 P.2d 1222 (Kan. 1987).
“December 5, 1985 Defendant filed a notice of intent to rely on the insanity defense pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3219. *46 December 18, 1985 State filed motion for reciprocal discovery pursuant to K.”
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.