§ 314. Guilty but mentally ill.
(a) General rule.--A person who timely offers a defense of insanity in accordance with the Rules of Criminal
Procedure may be found "guilty but mentally ill" at trial if the trier of facts finds,
beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty of an offense, was mentally ill
at the time of the commission of the offense and was not legally insane at the time
of the commission of the offense.
(b) Plea of guilty but mentally ill.--A person who waives his right to trial may plead guilty but mentally ill. No plea
of guilty but mentally ill may be accepted by the trial judge until he has examined
all reports prepared pursuant to the Rules of Criminal Procedure, has held a hearing
on the sole issue of the defendant's mental illness at which either party may present
evidence and is satisfied that the defendant was mentally ill at the time of the offense
to which the plea is entered. If the trial judge refuses to accept a plea of guilty
but mentally ill, the defendant shall be permitted to withdraw his plea. A defendant
whose plea is not accepted by the court shall be entitled to a jury trial, except
that if a defendant subsequently waives his right to a jury trial, the judge who presided
at the hearing on mental illness shall not preside at the trial.
(c) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section and 42 Pa.C.S. § 9727 (relating to disposition of
persons found guilty but mentally ill):
(1) "Mentally ill." One who as a result of mental disease or defect, lacks substantial capacity either
to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements
of the law.
(2) "Legal insanity." At the time of the commission of the act, the defendant was laboring under such a
defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality
of the act he was doing or, if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what
was wrong.
(d) Common law M'Naghten's Rule preserved.--Nothing in this section shall be deemed to repeal or otherwise abrogate the common
law defense of insanity (M'Naghten's Rule) in effect in this Commonwealth on the effective
date of this section.
(Dec. 15, 1982, P.L.1262, No.286, eff. 90 days)
1982 Amendment. Act 286 added section 314. Section 4 of Act 286 provided that Act 286 shall apply
to all indictments or informations filed on or after the effective date of Act 286.
Cross References. Section 314 is referred to in section 9727 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).
Notes of Decisions
Commonwealth v. Trill (1988)
pa · cites it 28×
“nd impartial jury trial by failing to grant his requested questions for voir dire; (5) whether the trial court improperly permitted the admission of hearsay testimony regarding the physician's report of his sanity; (6) whether the trial court improperly instructed the jury on…”
Commonwealth v. Andrews (2017)
pasuperct · cites it 4×
“Although the PCRA court did not cite any authority in support of this reasoning, the Commonwealth makes the same argument in its brief, relying on a Crimes Code provision, 18 Pa.C.S. § 314, that provides, in relevant part: § 314.”
Commonwealth v. Sheppard (1994)
pasuperct · cites it 8×
“III"] which would carry the mental state into the category "Guilty but mentally ill," 18 Pa.C.S. § 314. [7] The legislature did not abolish the M'Naghten Rule, see 18 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Rabold (2007)
pasuperct · cites it 4×
“Fischbein’s diagnosis that Rabold suffers from a psychotic disorder not otherwise specified, but testified that in his opinion, given to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that Rabold was not legally insane at the time of the attack, but, rather, “lacked substantial…”
Commonwealth v. Andre (2011)
pasuperct · cites it 4×
“Pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 314(a): A person who timely offers a defense of insanity in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure may be found “guilty but mentally ill” at trial if the trier of facts finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty of an offense,…”
Clark v. Arizona (2006)
scotus · cites it 2×
“§31–9–3 (2000); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. §314 (2002); S. C. Code Ann.”
Commonwealth v. Santiago (2004)
pa · cites it 2×
“Rather, a determination that a defendant is guilty of a crime, but was mentally ill at the time of its commission, expressly recognizes that all elements of the crime have been met.”
Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (2014)
pa · cites it 2×
“18 Pa.C.S. § 314(a). 12 Appellant submits that if the jury had found him guilty but mentally ill, it would also have been forced to conclude that he had established the mitigating circumstance that his capacity “to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his…”
Commonwealth v. Stevens (1999)
pa · cites it 4×
“"Guilty But Mentally Ill" is a statutory defense defined at Section 314 of the Criminal Code, and it provides: A person who timely offers a defense of insanity in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure may be found "guilty but mentally ill" at trial if the trier of…”
Commonwealth v. Morris (1989)
pa · cites it 26×
“§ 2502, is based. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of sentence.”
Commonwealth v. Santiago (1988)
pa · cites it 6×
“Specifically, appellant claims that the statutory provision for a verdict of guilty but mentally ill, 18 Pa.C.S. § 314, violates due process guarantees by shifting the burden of proof to the accused.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 314(a) — 16 cases
Commonwealth v. Trill (1988)
pa
“nd impartial jury trial by failing to grant his requested questions for voir dire; (5) whether the trial court improperly permitted the admission of hearsay testimony regarding the physician's report of his sanity; (6) whether the trial court improperly instructed the jury on…”
Commonwealth v. Andre (2011)
pasuperct
“Pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. § 314(a): A person who timely offers a defense of insanity in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure may be found “guilty but mentally ill” at trial if the trier of facts finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person is guilty of an offense,…”
Commonwealth v. Andrews (2017)
pasuperct
“Although the PCRA court did not cite any authority in support of this reasoning, the Commonwealth makes the same argument in its brief, relying on a Crimes Code provision, 18 Pa.C.S. § 314, that provides, in relevant part: § 314.”
Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (2014)
pa
“18 Pa.C.S. § 314(a). 12 Appellant submits that if the jury had found him guilty but mentally ill, it would also have been forced to conclude that he had established the mitigating circumstance that his capacity “to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 314(b) — 11 cases
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 314(c) — 2 cases
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 314(c)(1) — 11 cases
Commonwealth v. Baumhammers (2014)
pa
“18 Pa.C.S. § 314(a). 12 Appellant submits that if the jury had found him guilty but mentally ill, it would also have been forced to conclude that he had established the mitigating circumstance that his capacity “to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his…”
Commonwealth v. Stevens (1999)
pa
“"Guilty But Mentally Ill" is a statutory defense defined at Section 314 of the Criminal Code, and it provides: A person who timely offers a defense of insanity in accordance with the Rules of Criminal Procedure may be found "guilty but mentally ill" at trial if the trier of…”
Commonwealth v. Trill (1988)
pa
“nd impartial jury trial by failing to grant his requested questions for voir dire; (5) whether the trial court improperly permitted the admission of hearsay testimony regarding the physician's report of his sanity; (6) whether the trial court improperly instructed the jury on…”
Commonwealth v. Morris (1989)
pa
“§ 2502, is based. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of sentence.”
Commonwealth v. Sheppard (1994)
pasuperct
“III"] which would carry the mental state into the category "Guilty but mentally ill," 18 Pa.C.S. § 314. [7] The legislature did not abolish the M'Naghten Rule, see 18 Pa.”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 314(c)(1)(2) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Trill (1988)
pa
“nd impartial jury trial by failing to grant his requested questions for voir dire; (5) whether the trial court improperly permitted the admission of hearsay testimony regarding the physician's report of his sanity; (6) whether the trial court improperly instructed the jury on…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 314(c)(2) — 4 cases
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 314(c)(l)(2) — 1 case
Commonwealth v. Trill (1988)
pa
“nd impartial jury trial by failing to grant his requested questions for voir dire; (5) whether the trial court improperly permitted the admission of hearsay testimony regarding the physician's report of his sanity; (6) whether the trial court improperly instructed the jury on…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 314(d) — 5 cases
Commonwealth v. Sheppard (1994)
pasuperct
“III"] which would carry the mental state into the category "Guilty but mentally ill," 18 Pa.C.S. § 314. [7] The legislature did not abolish the M'Naghten Rule, see 18 Pa.”
Commonwealth v. Morris (1989)
pa
“§ 2502, is based. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of sentence.”
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.