When the defense is insanity of the defendant at the time the offense was committed, the jurors shall be instructed, if they acquit him on that ground, to state the fact with their verdict. The court shall place the person so acquitted (the acquittee) in temporary custody of the Commissioner of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services (hereinafter referred to in this chapter as the Commissioner) for evaluation as to whether the acquittee may be released with or without conditions or requires commitment. The court may authorize that the evaluation be conducted on an outpatient basis. If the court authorizes an outpatient evaluation, the Commissioner shall determine, on the basis of all information available, whether the evaluation shall be conducted on an outpatient basis or whether the acquittee shall be confined in a hospital for evaluation. If the court does not authorize an outpatient evaluation, the acquittee shall be confined in a hospital for evaluation. If an acquittee who is being evaluated on an outpatient basis fails to comply with such evaluation, the Commissioner shall petition the court for an order to confine the acquittee in a hospital for evaluation. A copy of the petition shall be sent to the acquittee's attorney and the attorney for the Commonwealth. The evaluation shall be conducted by (i) one psychiatrist and (ii) one clinical psychologist. The psychiatrist or clinical psychologist shall be skilled in the diagnosis of mental illness and intellectual disability and qualified by training and experience to perform such evaluations. The Commissioner shall appoint both evaluators. In the case of an acquittee confined in a hospital, at least one of the evaluators shall not be employed by the hospital in which the acquittee is primarily confined. The evaluators shall determine whether the acquittee currently has mental illness or intellectual disability and shall assess the acquittee and report on his condition and need for hospitalization with respect to the factors set forth in § 19.2-182.3. The evaluators shall conduct their examinations and report their findings separately within 45 days of the Commissioner's assumption of custody. Copies of the report shall be sent to the acquittee's attorney, the attorney for the Commonwealth for the jurisdiction where the person was acquitted and the community services board or behavioral health authority as designated by the Commissioner. If either evaluator recommends conditional release or release without conditions of the acquittee, the court shall extend the evaluation period to permit (a) the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services and (b) the appropriate community services board or behavioral health authority to jointly prepare a conditional release or discharge plan, as applicable, prior to the hearing.
1991, c. 427; 1993, c. 295; 1996, cc. 937, 980; 2007, cc. 485, 565; 2009, cc. 813, 840; 2012, cc. 476, 507; 2018, c. 16.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
14
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2023 · leading case:
Commonwealth v. Chatman, 538 S.E.2d 304 (Va. 2000).
Commonwealth v. Chatman, 538 S.E.2d 304 (Va. 2000).
· cites it 8× “Code § 19.2-182.2. If an acquittee is mentally ill and in need of inpatient hospitalization, the court must commit the acquittee.”
Mercer v. Commonwealth, 523 S.E.2d 213 (Va. 2000).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to Code § 19.2-182.2, 1 the circuit court remanded Mercer to the custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services (the Commissioner).”
Eastlack v. Com., 710 S.E.2d 723 (Va. 2011).
· cites it 2× “3 provides for a judicial hearing upon the report of the evaluators.”
Williams v. Commonwealth, 444 S.E.2d 16 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “Because the statutory scheme has been revised since the hearing in this case, see Code §§ 19.2-182.2 to 19.2-182.16, we need not address the remaining issues raised by Williams.”
Chatman v. Commonwealth, 518 S.E.2d 847 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “See Code §§ 19.2-182.2 to 19.2-182.16. See *599 also Williams v.”
D.L.G. v. Commonwealth, 724 S.E.2d 208 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “” Code § 19.2-182.2. Appellant contends on appeal that, because he is a juvenile, he was denied the ability to place in issue his sanity at the time he attempted to poison his mother.”
Nigel Elliot Walker v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 12× “Nigel Elliot Walker was acquitted of murder on a defense of not guilty by reason of insanity under Code § 19.2-182.2. On appeal, he challenges a decision of the circuit court denying his request to modify his conditional release plan under Code §§ 19.”
Williams v. Commonwealth (ORDER) (Va. 2017).
· cites it 8× “As to the August Offenses, the court accepted Williams’ plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, and ordered him placed into the temporary custody of the Commissioner of the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Services for evaluation pursuant to Code § 19.2-182.2…”
Bates v. Commonwealth (Va. 2014).
· cites it 8× “See Code § 19.2-182.2. In accordance with the requirements of Code § 19.”
Osman v. Osman (Va. 2013).
· cites it 6× “Code § 19.2-182.2 provides in relevant part that, "[w]hen the defense is insanity of the defendant at the time the offense was committed, the jurors shall be instructed, if they acquit him on that ground, to state the fact with their verdict.”
DLG v. Com., 724 S.E.2d 208 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “And, had the trier of fact in the circuit court acquitted appellant of attempted poisoning by reason of insanity, appellant would have had the right to undergo an evaluation to determine whether he may be "released with or without conditions or requires commitment," whether he…”
Michael Edward Jones Holmes v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 4× “But, of course, under Code § 19.2-182.2 the trial judge, not the jury, determines whether a defendant found not guilty by reason of insanity is a danger to society and should be committed to the Department of Mental Health and Retardation.”
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.