Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 611.026 (2026)

Criminal Responsibility Of Persons With A Mental Illness Or Cognitive Impairment

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No person having a mental illness or cognitive impairment so as to be incapable of understanding the proceedings or making a defense shall be tried, sentenced, or punished for any crime; but the person shall not be excused from criminal liability except upon proof that at the time of committing the alleged criminal act the person was laboring under such a defect of reason, from one of these causes, as not to know the nature of the act, or that it was wrong.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 70 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1967–2026 · leading case: Schleicher v. State, 718 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Schleicher v. State, 718 N.W.2d 440 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 24× “Schleicher pleaded not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental illness under Minn.Stat. § 611.026 (2004). [1] Schleicher, 672 N.”

State v. Bouwman, 328 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 1982). · cites it 16× “May the court admit, at the trial of a defendant charged with murder in the first degree, expert psychiatric opinion testimony (not offered to establish a defense under Minn.Stat. § 611.026) that the defendant, at the time of the alleged *705 crime, lacked the mental capacity to…”

State v. Munt, 831 N.W.2d 569 (Minn. 2013). · cites it 12× “’s use of the phrase “mental illness” was a reference to the mental illness defense codified in Minn.Stat. § 611.026 (2012). The statute incorporates the M’Naghten standard and provides that a person who is “mentally ill or mentally deficient” shall not be excused from criminal…”

State v. McLaughlin, 725 N.W.2d 703 (Minn. 2007). · cites it 14× “The court found that McLaughlin knew it was morally wrong to shoot the victims and concluded that McLaughlin therefore failed to establish a mental illness defense under the M’Naghten rule codified at Minn.Stat. § 611.026 (2004). Following his conviction, McLaughlin appealed to…”

City of Minneapolis v. Altimus, 238 N.W.2d 851 (Minn. 1976). · cites it 14× “Section 611.026 states: "No person shall be tried, sentenced, or punished for any crime while mentally ill or mentally deficient so as to be incapable of understanding the proceedings or making a defense; but he shall not be excused from criminal liability except upon proof that…”

State v. Brom, 463 N.W.2d 758 (Minn. 1990). · cites it 12× “Minn.Stat. § 611.026 (1990). [11] "In Minnesota, a defendant must prove mental illness at the time of the crime by a preponderance of the evidence.”

State v. Schleicher, 672 N.W.2d 550 (Minn. 2003). · cites it 18× “At trial, Schleicher pled not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental illness under Minn.Stat. § 611.026 (2002), 1 often referred to as the “M’Naghten rule,” 2 Minnesota’s legal insanity statute.”

State v. LaTourelle, 343 N.W.2d 277 (Minn. 1984). · cites it 8× “The first phase of the trial was on the issue of appellant’s guilt; the second was on whether appellant’s mental condition absolved him of criminal responsibility under Minn.Stat. § 611.026 (1982). Mr. La-Tourelle was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment on Count II.”

State v. Provost, 490 N.W.2d 93 (Minn. 1992). · cites it 8× “In Bouwman , we were asked to answer the following certified question: May the court admit, at the trial of a defendant charged with murder in the first degree, expert psychiatric opinion testimony (not offered to establish a defense under Minn.Stat. § 611.026) that the…”

Bruestle v. State, 719 N.W.2d 698 (Minn. 2006). · cites it 10× “Under Minn.Stat. § 611.026 (2004), 6 no one may be tried for or plead guilty to a crime if he is incompetent to stand trial due to mental illness or mental deficiency.”

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Wicka, 474 N.W.2d 324 (Minn. 1991). · cites it 8× “See Minn.Stat. § 611.026 (1990). While a strict standard is justified before relieving criminal responsibility, we believe the statutory codification of the M'Naghten rule provides but a partial answer when dealing within the realm of insurance law.”

State v. Ambaye, 616 N.W.2d 256 (Minn. 2000). · cites it 8× “[3] To successfully establish the insanity defense, respondent had to rebut the statutory presumption of responsibility for his actions.”

Show all 70 citing cases →

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.