Wisconsin Statutes
Wis. Stat. § 971.165 (2026)
Trial of actions upon plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
971.165(1)(1) If a defendant couples a plea of not guilty with a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect:
971.165(1)(a)(a) There shall be a separation of the issues with a sequential order of proof in a continuous trial. The plea of not guilty shall be determined first and the plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect shall be determined second.
971.165(1)(b)(b) If the plea of not guilty is tried to a jury, the jury shall be informed of the 2 pleas and that a verdict will be taken upon the plea of not guilty before the introduction of evidence on the plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. No verdict on the first plea may be valid or received unless agreed to by all jurors.
971.165(1)(c)1.1. If one or more jurors who participated in determining the first plea become unable to serve, the remaining jurors shall determine the 2nd plea.
971.165(1)(c)2.2. If the jury is discharged prior to reaching a verdict on the 2nd plea, the defendant shall not solely on that account be entitled to a redetermination of the first plea and a different jury may be selected to determine the 2nd plea only.
971.165(1)(c)3.3. If an appellate court reverses a judgment as to the 2nd plea but not as to the first plea and remands for further proceedings, or if the trial court vacates the judgment as to the 2nd plea but not as to the first plea, the 2nd plea may be determined by a different jury selected for this purpose.
971.165(1)(d)(d) If the defendant is found not guilty, the court shall enter a judgment of acquittal and discharge the defendant. If the defendant is found guilty, the court shall withhold entry of judgment pending determination of the 2nd plea.
971.165(2)(2) If the plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect is tried to a jury, the court shall inform the jury that the effect of a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect is that, in lieu of criminal sentence or probation, the defendant will be committed to the custody of the department of health services and will be placed in an appropriate institution unless the court determines that the defendant would not pose a danger to himself or herself or to others if released under conditions ordered by the court. No verdict on the plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect may be valid or received unless agreed to by at least five-sixths of the jurors.
971.165(3)(a)(a) If a defendant is not found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, the court shall enter a judgment of conviction and shall either impose or withhold sentence under s. 972.13 (2).
971.165(3)(b)(b) If a defendant is found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, the court shall enter a judgment of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. The court shall thereupon proceed under s. 971.17. A judgment entered under this paragraph is interlocutory to the commitment order entered under s. 971.17 and reviewable upon appeal therefrom.
971.165 HistoryHistory: 1987 a. 86; 1989 a. 31, 334; 1995 a. 27 s. 9126 (19); Sup. Ct. Order No. 96-08, 207 Wis. 2d xv (1997); 2007 a. 20 s. 9121 (6) (a).
971.165 NoteJudicial Council Note, 1987: Wisconsin presently requires each element of the crime (including any mental element) to be proven before evidence is taken on the plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. This statute provides for the procedural bifurcation of the pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, in order that evidence presented on the latter issue not prejudice determination of the former. State ex rel. LaFollette v. Raskin, 34 Wis. 2d 607 (1976).
971.165 NoteThe legal effect of a finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect is that the court must commit the defendant to the custody of the department of health and social services under s. 971.17.
971.165 NoteSub. (2) allows a five-sixths verdict on the plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. [87 Act 86]
971.165 AnnotationThe decision to withdraw a not guilty by reason of mental defect plea belongs to the defendant, not counsel. State v. Byrge, 225 Wis. 2d 702, 594 N.W.2d 388 (Ct. App. 1999), 97-3217.
971.165 AnnotationSection 972.01 (1), which requires state consent to the waiver of a jury in a criminal trial, applies when a defendant seeks to waive a jury in the responsibility phase of a bifurcated trial. The state has a legitimate interest in having the decision of mental responsibility decided by a jury. State v. Murdock, 2000 WI App 170, 238 Wis. 2d 301, 617 N.W.2d 175, 99-0566.
971.165 AnnotationA defendant can only be found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect after admitting to the criminal conduct or being found guilty. While the decision made in the responsibility phase is not criminal in nature, the mental responsibility phase remains a part of the criminal case in general, and the defendant is entitled to invoke the 5th amendment at the mental responsibility phase without penalty. State v. Langenbach, 2001 WI App 222, 247 Wis. 2d 933, 634 N.W.2d 916, 01-0851.
971.165 AnnotationAlthough a better practice, a circuit court is not required to conduct a right-to-testify colloquy at the responsibility phase of a bifurcated trial resulting from a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. State v. Lagrone, 2016 WI 26, 368 Wis. 2d 1, 878 N.W.2d 636, 13-1424.
971.165 AnnotationA directed verdict against a criminal defendant on the issue of insanity was constitutional. Leach v. Kolb, 911 F.2d 1249 (1990).
971.165 AnnotationThe trial court’s wholesale exclusion of the defendant’s proffered expert and lay testimony regarding post-traumatic stress disorder from the guilt phase of a murder trial did not violate the defendant’s right to present a defense and to testify on the defendant’s own behalf. Morgan v. Krenke, 232 F.3d 562 (2000).
971.165 AnnotationRestricting the Admission of Psychiatric Testimony on a Defendant’s Mental State: Wisconsin’s Steele Curtain. Conley. 1981 WLR 733.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 47
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1988–2026 · leading case: State v. James Elvin Lagrone, 2016 WI 26 (Wis. 2016).
State v. James Elvin Lagrone, 2016 WI 26 (Wis. 2016). “15 (2013-14),2 such right-to-testify colloquies are also required at the responsibility phase of the resulting bifurcated trial established by Wis. Stat. § 971.165 . See generally State v.”
State v. Corey R. Fugere, 924 N.W.2d 469 (Wis. 2019). “Wis. Stat. § 971.165 (1)(d). The responsibility phase "is not a criminal proceeding," but "is something close to a civil trial.”
State v. Erick O. Magett, 2014 WI 67 (Wis. 2014). “Wis. Stat. § 971.165 (1)(a). In the second phase, the jury considers whether the defendant had a mental disease or defect at the time of the crime and whether, "as a result of mental disease or defect the person lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness…”
State v. Corey R. Kucharski, 2015 WI 64 (Wis. 2015). “Wis. Stat. § 971.165 (1)(a). In the second phase, the jury considers whether the defendant had a mental disease or defect at the time of the crime and whether, "as a result of mental disease or defect the person lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness…”
State v. Murdock, 2000 WI App 170 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “02(1) is ambiguous in its interaction with Wis. Stat. § 971.165 , the statute setting forth the *313 trial procedure when a defendant enters a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.”
State v. Morgan, 536 N.W.2d 425 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “[4] While the present formulation under § 971.165, STATS., [5] has little in common with its statutory forebearer, one of the underlying purposes of this *405 system remains intact"the separation of the issues" presented to the jury.”
State v. Julius C. Burton, 2013 WI 61 (Wis. 2013). “Conversely, if the defendant pleads not guilty in conjunction with an NGI plea, Wis. Stat. § 971.165 (1) provides for the bifurcation of the guilt and mental responsibility phases of trial: (1) If a defendant couples a plea of not guilty with a plea of not guilty by reason of…”
Aaron Lindh v. James P. Murphy, Warden, 96 F.3d 856 (7th Cir. 1996). “See Wis. Stat. Ann. § 971.165 (l)(a). The jury’s one-sided picture of Roberts was particularly troubling because Roberts was the prosecution’s star witness during the second (mental disease) stage of the proceedings.”
State v. Lombard, 2004 WI App 52 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “Lombard acknowledges there is no requirement in the case law or statutes that the court must instruct the jury on the consequences of discharge.”
State v. Wood, 2010 WI 17 (Wis. 2010). “" Wis. Stat. §§ 971.165 (2), 971.17(3)(a). In making that determination, the court may consider, among other things, the nature and circumstances of the crime, the person's mental history and present mental condition, where the person will live, how the person will support…”
State v. Christopher W. Yakich, 2022 WI 8 (Wis. 2022). “2019AP1832-CR & 2019AP1833-CR.rfd ¶39 REBECCA FRANK DALLET, J.”
State v. Donyil L. Anderson, Sr., 2014 WI 93 (Wis. 2014). “Wis. Stat. § 971.165 (1); State v. Langenbach, 2001 WI App 222, ¶ 16 , 247 Wis.”
— Wis. Stat. § 971.165(1) — 3 cases
State v. Donyil L. Anderson, Sr., 2014 WI 93 (Wis. 2014). “Wis. Stat. § 971.165 (1); State v. Langenbach, 2001 WI App 222, ¶ 16 , 247 Wis.”
State v. Timmy Lansing Johnson (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).
State v. Donyil L. Anderson, Sr. (Wis. 2014).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.165(1)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Morgan, 536 N.W.2d 425 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “[4] While the present formulation under § 971.165, STATS., [5] has little in common with its statutory forebearer, one of the underlying purposes of this *405 system remains intact"the separation of the issues" presented to the jury.”
State v. Anthony Kwaame It (Wis. Ct. App. 2020).
Neas v. Koehler (E.D. Wis. 2020).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.165(1)(c) — 1 case
State v. Kruger, 932 N.W.2d 189 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.165(1)(d) — 2 cases
State v. Robert George Johnson (Wis. Ct. App. 2023).
Am. Strategic Ins. Corp. v. David Curry (Wis. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.165(2) — 2 cases
State v. Lombard, 2004 WI App 52 (Wis. Ct. App. 2004). “Lombard acknowledges there is no requirement in the case law or statutes that the court must instruct the jury on the consequences of discharge.”
State v. Murdock, 2000 WI App 170 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “02(1) is ambiguous in its interaction with Wis. Stat. § 971.165 , the statute setting forth the *313 trial procedure when a defendant enters a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.”
— Wis. Stat. § 971.165(3) — 1 case
State v. Timmy Lansing Johnson (Wis. Ct. App. 2026).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.165(3)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Corey R. Fugere, 924 N.W.2d 469 (Wis. 2019). “Wis. Stat. § 971.165 (1)(d). The responsibility phase "is not a criminal proceeding," but "is something close to a civil trial.”
State v. Corey R. Fugere (Wis. 2019).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.165(3)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Jefferson, 471 N.W.2d 274 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).
State v. Desmond J. Wilhite (Wis. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.165(l)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Morgan, 536 N.W.2d 425 (Wis. Ct. App. 1995). “[4] While the present formulation under § 971.165, STATS., [5] has little in common with its statutory forebearer, one of the underlying purposes of this *405 system remains intact"the separation of the issues" presented to the jury.”
State v. Murdock, 2000 WI App 170 (Wis. Ct. App. 2000). “02(1) is ambiguous in its interaction with Wis. Stat. § 971.165 , the statute setting forth the *313 trial procedure when a defendant enters a plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect.”
State v. Jacobson, 476 N.W.2d 22 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).
— Wis. Stat. § 971.165(l)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Locke, 502 N.W.2d 891 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Weber, 496 N.W.2d 762 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993).
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.