Utah Code

Utah Code § 77-16a-202 (2026)

Person found guilty with a mental condition-- Commitment to department -- Admission to Utah State Hospital

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section UT-LEGle.utah.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In sentencing and committing an offender with a mental condition to the department under Subsection 77-16a-104(3)(a) or in a felony case under Subsection 77-16a-103(6), the court shall:
sentence the offender to a term of imprisonment and order that the offender be committed to the department and admitted to the Utah State Hospital for care and treatment until transferred to UDC in accordance with Sections 77-16a-203 and 77-16a-204, making provision for readmission to the Utah State Hospital whenever the requirements and conditions of Section 77-16a-204 are met; or
order that the offender be committed to the department for care and treatment for no more than 18 months, or until the offender's condition has been stabilized to the point that commitment to the department and admission to the Utah State Hospital is no longer necessary to ensure adequate mental health treatment, whichever occurs first. At the expiration of that time, the court shall sentence the offender. A retention of jurisdiction under this Subsection (1)(b) shall be specified in a court order.
The court may not retain jurisdiction, under Subsection (1)(b), over the sentence of an offender with a mental condition who has been convicted of a capital felony. In capital cases, the court shall make the findings required by this section after the capital sentencing proceeding mandated by Section 76-3-207.
When an offender is committed to the department and admitted to the Utah State Hospital under Subsection (1)(b), the department shall provide the court with reports of the offender's mental health status every six months. Those reports shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 77-16a-203. Additionally, the court may appoint an independent examiner to assess the mental health status of the offender.
The period of commitment to the department and admission to the Utah State Hospital, and any subsequent retransfers to the Utah State Hospital made pursuant to Section 77-16a-204 may not exceed the maximum sentence imposed by the court. Upon expiration of that sentence, the administrator of the facility where the offender is located may initiate civil proceedings for involuntary commitment in accordance with Title 26B, Chapter 5, Health Care - Substance Use and Mental Health, or Title 26B, Chapter 6, Part 4, Division of Services for People with Disabilities.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1995–2016 · leading case: State v. Herrera, 895 P.2d 359 (Utah 1995).
State v. Herrera, 895 P.2d 359 (Utah 1995). “” § 77-16a-202(l)(b). The guilty and mentally ill verdict buffers some of the harsher consequences of eliminating an independent insanity defense.”
State v. PRION, 2012 UT 15 (Utah 2012). “These sections require the Department of Human Services to prepare and submit regular reports to the district court on the status of offenders being treated by a mental health facility under the GAMI statute.”
State v. Otvos, 2016 UT App 91 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “§ 77-16a-202(1)(a). Section 77-16a-204 provides for readmission to the state hospital if a mentally ill defendant's condition deteriorates.”
— Utah Code § 77-16a-202(1)(a) — 1 case
State v. Otvos, 2016 UT App 91 (Utah Ct. App. 2016). “§ 77-16a-202(1)(a). Section 77-16a-204 provides for readmission to the state hospital if a mentally ill defendant's condition deteriorates.”
— Utah Code § 77-16a-202(3) — 1 case
State v. PRION, 2012 UT 15 (Utah 2012). “These sections require the Department of Human Services to prepare and submit regular reports to the district court on the status of offenders being treated by a mental health facility under the GAMI statute.”
— Utah Code § 77-16a-202(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Herrera, 895 P.2d 359 (Utah 1995). “” § 77-16a-202(l)(b). The guilty and mentally ill verdict buffers some of the harsher consequences of eliminating an independent insanity defense.”
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.