22-3221.
Special jury question.
In any case in which the defense has offered substantial evidence of a mental disease or defect excluding the mental state required as an element of the offense charged, and the jury returns a verdict of "not guilty," the jury shall also answer a special question in the following form: "Do you find the defendant not guilty solely because the defendant, at the time of the alleged crime, was suffering from a mental disease or defect which rendered the defendant incapable of possessing the required criminal intent?" The provisions of this section shall be in force and take effect on and after January 1, 1996.
History:
L. 1995, ch. 251, § 21; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Under facts, mandamus petition to require judge to commit criminal defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity denied. State v. Becker, 264 Kan. 804, 808, 958 P.2d 627 (1998).
2. Court discusses verdict form as it relates to defense based on mental disease or defect. State v. Hunter, 41 Kan. App. 2d 507, 203 P.3d 23 (2009).
State v. Becker, 958 P.2d 627 (Kan. 1998). · cites it 17ד22-3428(1)(a) mandates that a criminal defendant who has been acquitted on the basis of a mental defect or disease under K.S.A. 22-3221 be committed *805 to the Larned State Security Hospital for safekeeping and treatment.”
State v. Van Hoet, 89 P.3d 606 (Kan. 2004). · cites it 5דThe statute now provides: “(l)(a) When a defendant is acquitted and the jury answers in the affirmative to the special question asked pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3221 and amendments thereto, the defendant shall be committed to the state security hospital for safekeeping and treatment.”
In re Care & Treatment of Easterberg, 437 P.3d 964 (Kan. 2019). · cites it 2ד22-3428, and amendments thereto, and the jury who returned the verdict of not guilty answers in the affirmative to the special question asked pursuant to K.S.A. 22-3221, and amendments thereto." K.”
State v. White, 161 P.3d 208 (Kan. 2007). “The complained-of verdict form was taken directly from K.S.A. 22-3221, which provides: “In any case in which the defense has offered substantial evidence of a mental disease or defect excluding the mental state required as an element of the offense charged, and the juiy returns…”
State v. Hunter, 203 P.3d 23 (Kan. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 8ד3d 208 (2007), we find no clear error committed by the trial court in taking the verdict form in part directly from K.S.A. 22-3221. Next, Hunter argues that the trial court violated his constitutional rights by not instructing the jury on the lesser included offense of battery.”
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.