22-3220.
History: L. 1995, ch. 251, § 20; Repealed, L. 2011, ch. 30, § 288; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"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).
"Reduction in the Protection for Mentally Ill Criminal Defendants: Kansas Upholds the Replacement of M'Naughten Approach with the Mens Rea Approach, Effectively Eliminating the Insanity Defense [State v. Bethel, 66 P.3d 840 (Kan. 2003)]," Jenny Williams, 44 W.L.J. 213, 216, 227, 229, 233, 244 (2004).
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. State not required to adopt any particular insanity test; provisions of K.S.A. 22-3220 are constitutional. State v. Bethel, 275 Kan. 456, 66 P.3d 840 (2003).
2. Convictions of aggravated kidnapping and attempted rape reversed because of inadequate representation. State v. Davis, 277 Kan. 309, 85 P.3d 1164 (2004).
3. Conviction reversed; exclusion of testimony of defendant's expert witness regarding lack of mental state or mental capacity violates fundamental right to fair trial. State v. White, 279 Kan. 326, 109 P.3d 1199 (2005).
4. Exclusion of defense psychologist's testimony regarding defendant's general mental state not error or abuse of discretion. State v. Pennington, 281 Kan. 426, 438, 440, 132 P.3d 902 (2006).
5. Defense of mental disease or defect; no error in failing to instruct on defense of voluntary intoxication. State v. Sappington, 285 Kan. 158, 169 P.3d 1096 (2007).
6. Cited; test for diminished capacity focuses on criminal intent, not on ability to make moral choices. In re D.A., 40 Kan. App. 2d 878, 892, 197 P.3d 849 (2008).