A. If the attorney for the defendant gives notice pursuant to § 19.2-168, and the Commonwealth thereafter seeks an evaluation of the defendant's sanity at the time of the offense, the court shall appoint one or more qualified mental health experts to perform such an evaluation. The court shall order the defendant to submit to such an evaluation and advise the defendant on the record in court that a refusal to cooperate with the Commonwealth's expert could result in exclusion of the defendant's expert evidence. The qualification of the experts shall be governed by subsection A of § 19.2-169.5. The location of the evaluation shall be governed by subsection B of § 19.2-169.5. The attorney for the Commonwealth shall be responsible for providing the experts the information specified in subsection C of § 19.2-169.5. After performing their evaluation, the experts shall report their findings and opinions, and provide copies of psychiatric, psychological, medical or other records obtained during the course of the evaluation to the attorneys for the Commonwealth and the defense. The evaluator shall also send a redacted copy of the report removing references to the defendant's name, date of birth, case number, and court of jurisdiction to the Commissioner of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services for the purpose of peer review to establish and maintain the list of approved evaluators described in subsection A of § 19.2-169.5.
B. If the court finds, after hearing evidence presented by the parties, that the defendant has refused to cooperate with an evaluation requested by the Commonwealth, it may admit evidence of such refusal or, in the discretion of the court, bar the defendant from presenting expert psychiatric or psychological evidence at trial on the issue of his sanity at the time of the offense.
1982, c. 653; 1986, c. 535; 2016, c. 445.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case:
Grattan v. Com., 685 S.E.2d 634 (Va. 2009).
Grattan v. Com., 685 S.E.2d 634 (Va. 2009).
· cites it 20× “" On the first day of trial, the Commonwealth moved, pursuant to Code § 19.2-168.1, to bar Grattan from introducing expert testimony on the issue of his sanity at the time of the offenses.”
Novak v. Commonwealth, 457 S.E.2d 402 (Va. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 4× “Defendant thereafter requested the court to compel production of the Mansheim report pursuant to Code § 19.2-168.1. Defendant also asserted that the "conduct of .”
Powell v. Commonwealth, 552 S.E.2d 344 (Va. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Samenow to evaluate Powell’s sanity at the time of the offense pursuant to Code §§ 19.2-168.1 and 19.2-169.5. On March 8, 2000, Dr.”
Andrew Gilbert Schmuhl v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 818 S.E.2d 71 (Va. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Appellant opposed the Commonwealth’s motions, arguing that the provisions of Code § 19.2-168.1 and § 19.2-169.5 did not apply to an involuntary intoxication defense.”
Hood v. Com., 701 S.E.2d 421 (Va. 2010).
· cites it 4× “Code § 19.2-168.1(B) (permitting a court to bar defendant from presenting expert testimony in support of an insanity defense for failing to cooperate with the Commonwealth's expert); Grattan v.”
White v. Commonwealth, 616 S.E.2d 49 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “The legislature subsequently codified this right at Code § 19.2-168.1. See 1982 Va. Acts, ch.”
White v. Commonwealth, 605 S.E.2d 337 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “The legislature subsequently codified this right at Code § 19.2-168.1. See 1982 Va. Acts, ch.”
McCulloch v. Commonwealth, 514 S.E.2d 797 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “The Commonwealth then moved for an examination of the defendant by a qualified mental health expert pursuant to Code § 19.2-168.1. The trial court granted the motion and returned the defendant to Central State Hospital for the evaluation.”
Powell v. Com., 544 S.E.2d 679 (Va. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Samenow to evaluate Powell's sanity at the time of the offense pursuant to Code §§ 19.2-168.1 and 19.2-169.5. On March 8, 2000, Dr.”
Jonathan Peter Grattan, II v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 21× “Following that hearing, the trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion, stating: [u]nder [Code] § 19.2-168.1([B]) the Court clearly has discretion both to exclude the testimony of the defendant’s expert witnesses on psychiatry and also has authority to permit such testimony…”
Andrew Gilbert Schmuhl v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “Appellant opposed the Commonwealth’s motions, arguing that the provisions of Code § 19.2-168.1 and § 19.2-169.5 did not apply to an involuntary intoxication defense.”
Commonwealth v. Brown, 92 Va. Cir. 353 (Dinwiddie Cir. Ct. 2016).
· cites it 2× “I am not going to continue this case based on the defense’s general claims that it needs additional time.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-168.1(A) — 2 cases
Grattan v. Com., 685 S.E.2d 634 (Va. 2009).
“" On the first day of trial, the Commonwealth moved, pursuant to Code § 19.2-168.1, to bar Grattan from introducing expert testimony on the issue of his sanity at the time of the offenses.”
Jonathan Peter Grattan, II v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
“Following that hearing, the trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion, stating: [u]nder [Code] § 19.2-168.1([B]) the Court clearly has discretion both to exclude the testimony of the defendant’s expert witnesses on psychiatry and also has authority to permit such testimony…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-168.1(B) — 3 cases
Grattan v. Com., 685 S.E.2d 634 (Va. 2009).
“" On the first day of trial, the Commonwealth moved, pursuant to Code § 19.2-168.1, to bar Grattan from introducing expert testimony on the issue of his sanity at the time of the offenses.”
Hood v. Com., 701 S.E.2d 421 (Va. 2010).
“Code § 19.2-168.1(B) (permitting a court to bar defendant from presenting expert testimony in support of an insanity defense for failing to cooperate with the Commonwealth's expert); Grattan v.”
Jonathan Peter Grattan, II v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
“Following that hearing, the trial court granted the Commonwealth’s motion, stating: [u]nder [Code] § 19.2-168.1([B]) the Court clearly has discretion both to exclude the testimony of the defendant’s expert witnesses on psychiatry and also has authority to permit such testimony…”
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.