22-3219. Notice and procedure; mental examination. (1) Evidence of mental disease or defect excluding criminal responsibility is not admissible upon a trial unless the defendant serves upon the prosecuting attorney and files with the court a written notice of such defendant's intention to assert the defense that the defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect lacked the mental state required as an element of the offense charged. Such notice must be served and filed before trial and not more than 30 days after entry of the plea of not guilty to the information or indictment. For good cause shown the court may permit notice at a later date.
(2) A defendant who files a notice of intention to assert the defense that the defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect lacked the mental state required as an element of the offense charged thereby submits and consents to abide by such further orders as the court may make requiring the mental examination of the defendant and designating the place of examination and the physician or licensed psychologist by whom such examination shall be made. No order of the court respecting a mental examination shall preclude the defendant from procuring at such defendant's own expense an examination by a physician or licensed psychologist of such defendant's own choosing. A defendant requesting a mental examination pursuant to K.S.A. 22-4508, and amendments thereto, may request a physician or licensed psychologist of such defendant's own choosing. The judge shall inquire as to the estimated cost for such examination and shall appoint the requested physician or licensed psychologist if such physician or licensed psychologist agrees to accept compensation in an amount in accordance with the compensation standards set by the board of supervisors of panels to aid indigent defendants. A report of each mental examination of the defendant shall be filed in the court and copies thereof shall be supplied to the defendant and the prosecuting attorney.
History: L. 1970, ch. 129, § 22-3219; L. 1977, ch. 120, § 1; L. 1989, ch. 92, § 34; L. 1993, ch. 247, § 1; L. 1995, ch. 251, § 25; January 1, 1996.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
Provisions of this section remain substantially unchanged from prior law, Richard H. Seaton and Paul E. Wilson, 39 J.B.A.K. 97, 168 (1970).
"Representing the Mentally Retarded Defendant," Karl Menninger II, 3 J.K.T.L.A. No. 3, 6, 11 (1979).
"Criminal Responsibility: Changes in the Insanity Defense and the 'Guilty But Mentally Ill' Response," Kenneth Slowinski, 21 W.L.J. 515, 538 (1982).
"The Admissibility of Child Victim Hearsay in Kansas: A Defense Perspective," Christopher B. McNeil, 23 W.L.J. 265, 282 (1984).
"The Insanity Defense in Kansas: Procedure and Practice," Jack Peggs, 53 J.K.B.A. 187 (1984).
"Forensic Psychiatry: Less Typical Applications," Roy B. Lacoursiere, M.D., 30 W.L.J. 29, 31 (1990).
Survey of Recent Cases, 43 K.L.R. 983 (1995).
"Farewell to Insanity—A Return to Mens Rea," Raymond L. Spring, 66 J.K.B.A. No. 4, 38 (1997).
"Insanity Denied: Abolition of the Insanity Defense in Kansas," Marc Rosen, 8 Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y, No. 2, 253 (1999).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Insanity issue not raised at trial; evidence of intoxication offered; no error in refusing instructions on insanity. State v. Osbey, 213 Kan. 564, 570, 517 P.2d 141.
2. Subsection (1) construed; requirements not complied with. State v. Boyd, 216 Kan. 373, 378, 379, 532 P.2d 1064.
3. Disclosure of each mental examination where a defense is to be based on mental disease or defect is the rule. State v. Pyle, 216 Kan. 423, 441, 532 P.2d 1309.
4. Noncompliance with section noted; no abuse of discretion in refusal to provide psychiatric services for defendant. State v. Bradford, 219 Kan. 336, 339, 548 P.2d 812.
5. Section does not require psychiatric examination by physician of defendant's own choosing at public expense. State v. Burnett, 222 Kan. 162, 163, 164, 563 P.2d 451.
6. Defense of insanity in prosecution for murder; conviction affirmed. State v. Sanders, 223 Kan. 273, 574 P.2d 559.
7. The trial judge has discretion to order a psychiatric examination of a complaining witness in a sex crime case. State v. Gregg, 226 Kan. 481, 485, 602 P.2d 85.
8. Mandatory commitment of insanity acquittees does not constitute a denial of equal protection of the law, due process or cruel and unusual punishment. In re Jones, 228 Kan. 90, 98, 612 P.2d 1211.
9. Filing notice of intent to rely on insanity defense held waiver of requirements of speedy trial under K.S.A. 22-3402. State v. Topham, 231 Kan. 167, 168, 169, 170, 642 P.2d 986 (1982).
10. No prejudicial error by trial court in failing to instruct physician by written order to perform mental examination of defendant. State v. Grauerholz, 232 Kan. 221, 224, 226, 654 P.2d 395 (1982).
11. Police officer's brief reference to defendant's background raised no reasonable doubt as to sanity. State v. Roadenbaugh, 234 Kan. 474, 481, 673 P.2d 1166 (1983).
12. Commitment may be made to mental institution in lieu of imprisonment; use of psychiatric reports relating to insanity defense as substitute for report on commitment under K.S.A. 22-3429. State v. Adkins, 236 Kan. 259, 260, 261, 689 P.2d 880 (1984).
13. Cited; battered woman syndrome distinguished, expert witness testimony examined. State v. Hodges, 239 Kan. 63, 72, 716 P.2d 563 (1986).
14. Insanity defense as speedy trial delay (K.S.A. 22-3402), examined. State v. Maas, 242 Kan. 44, 744 P.2d 1222 (1987).
15. Defense of unconsciousness by reason of seizure recognized and equated with epilepsy rather than insanity. State v. Massey, 242 Kan. 252, 259, 747 P.2d 802 (1987).
16. Insanity and alibi (K.S.A. 22-3218) only circumstances requiring notice of intended defense; voluntary intoxication (K.S.A. 21-3208) distinguished. In re Habeas Corpus Petition of Mason, 245 Kan. 111, 113, 775 P.2d 179 (1989).
17. Insanity defense does not place burden of proof on accused; evidence as whole must create reasonable doubt. State v. Pioletti, 246 Kan. 49, 57, 785 P.2d 963 (1990).
18. Refusal of trial court to prohibit psychiatric testimony examined. State v. Ji, 251 Kan. 3, 21, 832 P.2d 1176 (1992).
19. Trial court's intrusion into executive function of prosecuting attorney examined. State v. Williamson, 253 Kan. 163, 167, 853 P.2d 56 (1993).
20. Whether attorney's contemptuous action was excusable because compliance with discovery order would violate defendant's constitutional rights examined. State v. Williams, 20 Kan. App. 2d 185, 186, 189, 884 P.2d 755 (1994).
21. Prosecutor's improper question concerning privileged area held harmless error. State v. Foster, 259 Kan. 198, 210, 910 P.2d 848 (1996).
22. Issue raised and resolved at trial but not preserved for appeal cannot be raised at appellate level. State v. Ordway, 261 Kan. 776, 802, 934 P.2d 94 (1997).
23. No error in trial court's refusal to allow psychiatric testimony regarding defendant when request was made at beginning of trial. State v. Beuhler-May, 279 Kan. 371, 110 P.3d 425 (2005).
24. The district court may order a mental examination of a defendant who has filed a notice of intent to assert a mental disease or defect defense. State v. Cheener, 295 Kan. 229, 284 P.3d 1007 (2012).
|
|