(1) Any person prosecuted
for an offense may plead that he or she is not responsible by reason of insanity
at the time of the offense and in such case the burden shall be upon the defendant
to prove the defense of not responsible by reason of insanity by a preponderance
of the evidence. No evidence offered by the defendant for the purpose of establishing
his or her insanity shall be admitted in the trial of the case unless notice
of intention to rely upon the insanity defense is given to the county attorney
and filed with the court not later than sixty days before trial.
(2) Upon the filing of the notice the court, on motion of the state, may order the
defendant to be examined at a time and place designated in the order, by one
or more qualified experts, appointed by the court, to inquire into the sanity
or insanity of the defendant at the time of the commission of the alleged
offense. The court may order that the examination be conducted at one of the
regional centers or at any appropriate facility. The presence of counsel at
the examination shall be within the discretion of the court. The results of
such examination shall be sent to the court and to the prosecuting attorney.
In misdemeanor or felony cases, the defendant may request the court to order
the prosecuting attorney to permit the defendant to inspect and copy the results
of such examination pursuant to the procedures set forth in sections 29-1912
to 29-1921. In the interest of justice and good cause shown the court may
waive the requirements provided in this section.
(3) If the trier of fact acquits the defendant on the grounds of insanity, the verdict
shall reflect whether the trier acquits him or her on that ground alone or
on other grounds as well. When the defendant is acquitted solely on the ground
of insanity, the court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the defendant
for disposition consistent with the terms of this section and sections 29-3701
to 29-3704.
(4) For purposes of this section, insanity does not include any temporary condition that was proximately
caused by the voluntary ingestion, inhalation, injection, or absorption of
intoxicating liquor, any drug or other mentally debilitating substance, or
any combination thereof.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
39
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1934–2025 · leading case:
State v. Brennauer, 314 Neb. 782 (Neb. 2023).
State v. Brennauer, 314 Neb. 782 (Neb. 2023).
· cites it 30× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203 (4) (Reissue 2016) codified Nebraska’s longstanding precedent that a men- tal disease or defect does not include voluntary intoxication, and a defendant’s loss of capacity that was immediately produced by intoxi- cation does not excuse criminal…”
State v. Ryan, 444 N.W.2d 610 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 17× ““ When the Defendant raises the issue of sanity the state should have the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant was sane at the time of the offense (Assignments #9 and #10)” Prior to the trial the defendant filed notice of his intention to rely on…”
State v. Hood, 301 Neb. 207 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 5× “Hood does not allege that the facts of this case would have satisfied an insanity defense based on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203 (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Bigelow, 303 Neb. 729 (Neb. 2019).
· cites it 5× “§ 29-2203 (4) (Reissue 2016) establish that the insanity defense is not available in cases involving a temporary condition resulting from voluntary intoxication, we have not addressed whether the insanity defense is available when the defendant's mental state is altered by…”
State v. Vosler, 345 N.W.2d 806 (Neb. 1984).
· cites it 14× “Such defense is not an issue in the case unless the defendant has pled it as a defense and has otherwise complied with the provisions of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2203 (Cum.Supp.1982), or as in Hall , when testimony aimed at establishing an insanity defense has been allowed.”
State v. Warner, 977 N.W.2d 904 (Neb. 2022).
· cites it 6× “In October 2020, Warner filed a notice of intention to rely upon an insanity defense pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203 (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Stack, 307 Neb. 773 (Neb. 2020).
· cites it 5× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203 (1) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Hankins, 441 N.W.2d 854 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 7× “(5) failure to grant a mistrial because of the State’s cross-examination; (6) failure to sustain Hankins’ motions for a directed verdict or dismissal, and finding the evidence sufficient to support the verdicts; (7) giving of certain instructions; (8) refusal to give a requested…”
State v. Larsen, 586 N.W.2d 641 (Neb. 1998).
· cites it 9× “Larsen asserts that the evidence should have been excluded on the grounds that the State failed to comply with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203 (Reissue 1995) and the Douglas County District Court rule on pretrial motions, Fourth Jud.”
State v. Urbano, 589 N.W.2d 144 (Neb. 1999).
· cites it 4× “At first blush, Urbano’s argument seems to be based on the insanity defense found in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203 (Reissue 1995).”
State v. Johnson, 308 Neb. 331 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 5× “Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203 (1) (Reissue 2016), the defendant carries the burden to prove the insanity defense by a pre- ponderance of the evidence.”
State v. Gutierrez, 726 N.W.2d 542 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 3× “In Larsen, the defendant filed a notice of intention to rely upon an insanity defense, as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203 (Reissue 1995).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203(1) — 5 cases
State v. Stack, 307 Neb. 773 (Neb. 2020).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203 (1) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Warner, 977 N.W.2d 904 (Neb. 2022).
“In October 2020, Warner filed a notice of intention to rely upon an insanity defense pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203 (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Johnson, 308 Neb. 331 (Neb. 2021).
“Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203 (1) (Reissue 2016), the defendant carries the burden to prove the insanity defense by a pre- ponderance of the evidence.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203(3) — 1 case
State v. Warner, 977 N.W.2d 904 (Neb. 2022).
“In October 2020, Warner filed a notice of intention to rely upon an insanity defense pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203 (Reissue 2016).”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203(4) — 8 cases
State v. Brennauer, 314 Neb. 782 (Neb. 2023).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203 (4) (Reissue 2016) codified Nebraska’s longstanding precedent that a men- tal disease or defect does not include voluntary intoxication, and a defendant’s loss of capacity that was immediately produced by intoxi- cation does not excuse criminal…”
State v. Bigelow, 303 Neb. 729 (Neb. 2019).
“§ 29-2203 (4) (Reissue 2016) establish that the insanity defense is not available in cases involving a temporary condition resulting from voluntary intoxication, we have not addressed whether the insanity defense is available when the defendant's mental state is altered by…”
State v. Stack, 307 Neb. 773 (Neb. 2020).
“Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203 (1) (Reissue 2016).”
State v. Hood, 301 Neb. 207 (Neb. 2018).
“Hood does not allege that the facts of this case would have satisfied an insanity defense based on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2203 (Reissue 2016).”
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.