U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 47— UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VII— TRIAL PROCEDURE

10 U.S.C. § 850a

Art. 50a. Defense of lack of mental responsibility

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) It is an affirmative defense in a trial by court-martial that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the accused, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of the acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense.(b) The accused has the burden of proving the defense of lack of mental responsibility by clear and convincing evidence.(c) Whenever lack of mental responsibility of the accused with respect to an offense is properly at issue, the military judge shall instruct the members of the court as to the defense of lack of mental responsibility under this section and charge them to find the accused—(1) guilty;(2) not guilty; or(3) not guilty only by reason of lack of mental responsibility.(d) Subsection (c) does not apply to a court-martial composed of a military judge only. In the case of a court-martial composed of a military judge only, whenever lack of mental responsibility of the accused with respect to an offense is properly at issue, the military judge shall find the accused—(1) guilty;(2) not guilty; or(3) not guilty only by reason of lack of mental responsibility.(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 852 of this title (article 52), the accused shall be found not guilty only by reason of lack of mental responsibility if—(1) a majority of the members of the court-martial present at the time the vote is taken determines that the defense of lack of mental responsibility has been established; or(2) in the case of a court-martial composed of a military judge only, the military judge determines that the defense of lack of mental responsibility has been established.(Added Pub. L. 99–661, div. A, title VIII, § 802(a)(1), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3905; Pub. L. 114–328, div. E, title LVII, § 5233, Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2915.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2016—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–328, in introductory provisions, struck out “, or the president of a court-martial without a military judge,” after “the military judge”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2016 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–328 effective on Jan. 1, 2019, as designated by the President, with implementing regulations and provisions relating to applicability to various situations, see section 5542 of Pub. L. 114–328 and Ex. Ord. No. 13825, set out as notes under section 801 of this title.

Effective Date

Pub. L. 99–661, div. A, title VIII, § 802(b), Nov. 14, 1986, 100 Stat. 3906, provided that: “Section 850a of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)(1), shall apply only to offenses committed on or after the date of the enactment of this Act [Nov. 14, 1986].”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: United States v. Meeks, 41 M.J. 150 (1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Meeks, 41 M.J. 150 (1994). · cites it 4× “50a, UCMJ, 10 USC § 850a. A shift in the burden of proof does not change the fact that appellant cannot move.”
United States v. Shaw, 64 M.J. 460 (C.A.A.F. 2007). · cites it 2× “Article 50a(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 850a(a) (2000). In the context of a providence inquiry, however, the responsibility for assessing whether there is reason to believe that the defense may arise 2 United States v.”
United States v. Collins, 60 M.J. 261 (C.A.A.F. 2004). · cites it 4× “11 If the military judge finds that an accused is not competent, trial may not proceed,12 and again the military judge’s ruling is tested for abuse of discretion.”
United States v. Martin, 56 M.J. 97 (C.A.A.F. 2001). · cites it 2× “50a(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 850a(a). The second element of this test is disjunctive.”
United States v. Berri, 33 M.J. 337 (1991). · cites it 4× “50a, UCMJ, 10 USC § 850a; Ellis v. Jacob, supra. The testimony was received without restriction in this regard, and there is.”
United States v. Gray, 51 M.J. 1 (C.A.A.F. 1999). · cites it 2× “50a, UCMJ, 10 USC § 850a. However, he did introduce expert evidence on his mental state for purposes of sentence mitigation.”
United States v. Murphy, 50 M.J. 4 (C.A.A.F. 1998). · cites it 2× “Article 50a(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 850a(a), states: It is an affirmative defense in a trial by court-martial that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the accused, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature…”
Ellis v. Jacob, 26 M.J. 90 (1988). · cites it 2× “The judge based his ruling on Article 50a, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 850a, and R.C.M. 916(k)(2), Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984.”
United States v. Kreutzer, 61 M.J. 293 (C.A.A.F. 2005). “1988), dispelled any construction of Article 50a(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 850a(a) (2000), that would eliminate evidence of mental conditions relevant to premeditation, specific intent, knowledge, or willfulness, i.”
United States v. Riddle, 67 M.J. 335 (C.A.A.F. 2009). · cites it 2× “Article 50a(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 850a(a) (2000); Rules for Courts-Martial (R.”
United States v. Mott, 72 M.J. 319 (C.A.A.F. 2013). “Jury Instructions on Wrongfulness The affirmative defense of lack of mental responsibility requires the accused to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that at the time of the offense, (1) the accused suffered from a “severe mental disease or defect,” and (2) as a result of…”
United States v. Curtis, 44 M.J. 106 (C.A.A.F. 1996). “50a, UCMJ, 10 USC § 850a. This standard was reflected at the time of the offenses in RCM 916(k)(l) (Change 3), effective Nov.”
Show all 60 citing cases →
— 10 U.S.C. § 850a(a) — 22 cases
United States v. Shaw, 64 M.J. 460 (C.A.A.F. 2007). “Article 50a(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 850a(a) (2000). In the context of a providence inquiry, however, the responsibility for assessing whether there is reason to believe that the defense may arise 2 United States v.”
United States v. Murphy, 50 M.J. 4 (C.A.A.F. 1998). “Article 50a(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 850a(a), states: It is an affirmative defense in a trial by court-martial that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the accused, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature…”
United States v. Kreutzer, 61 M.J. 293 (C.A.A.F. 2005). “1988), dispelled any construction of Article 50a(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 850a(a) (2000), that would eliminate evidence of mental conditions relevant to premeditation, specific intent, knowledge, or willfulness, i.”
United States v. Meeks, 41 M.J. 150 (1994). “50a, UCMJ, 10 USC § 850a. A shift in the burden of proof does not change the fact that appellant cannot move.”
United States v. Riddle, 67 M.J. 335 (C.A.A.F. 2009). “Article 50a(a), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 850a(a) (2000); Rules for Courts-Martial (R.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 850a(b) — 11 cases
United States v. Martin, 56 M.J. 97 (C.A.A.F. 2001). “50a(a), UCMJ, 10 USC § 850a(a). The second element of this test is disjunctive.”
United States v. Smith, 36 M.J. 455 (1993).
United States v. Berri, 33 M.J. 337 (1991). “50a, UCMJ, 10 USC § 850a; Ellis v. Jacob, supra. The testimony was received without restriction in this regard, and there is.”
United States v. Gardner, 35 M.J. 300 (1992).
United States v. Estes, 62 M.J. 544 (A.F.C.C.A. 2005).
— 10 U.S.C. § 850a(c)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Collins, 60 M.J. 261 (C.A.A.F. 2004). “11 If the military judge finds that an accused is not competent, trial may not proceed,12 and again the military judge’s ruling is tested for abuse of discretion.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 850a(e)(1) — 1 case
United States v. Howard (A.F.C.C.A. 2025).
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.