Section 552.030

Title XXXVII CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Chapter 552

Effective - 28 Aug 2023, 2 histories   

  552.030.  Mental disease or defect, not guilty plea based on — evidence — notice of defense — examination, reports confidential — statements not admissible, exception — presumption of competency — verdict contents — order of commitment to department. — 1.  A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect such person was incapable of knowing and appreciating the nature, quality, or wrongfulness of such person's conduct.

  2.  Evidence of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility shall not be admissible at trial of the accused unless the accused, at the time of entering such accused's plea to the charge, pleads not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, or unless within ten days after a plea of not guilty, or at such later date as the court may for good cause permit, the accused files a written notice of such accused's purpose to rely on such defense.  Such a plea or notice shall not deprive the accused of other defenses.  The state may accept a defense of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, whether raised by plea or written notice, if the accused has no other defense and files a written notice to that effect.  The state shall not accept a defense of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility in the absence of any pretrial evaluation as described in this section or section 552.020.  Upon the state's acceptance of the defense of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, the court shall proceed to order the commitment of the accused as provided in section 552.040 in cases of persons acquitted on the ground of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, and further proceedings shall be had regarding the confinement and release of the accused as provided in section 552.040.

  3.  Whenever the accused has pleaded mental disease or defect excluding responsibility or has given the written notice provided in subsection 2 of this section, and such defense has not been accepted as provided in subsection 2 of this section, the court shall, after notice and upon motion of either the state or the accused, by order of record, appoint one or more private psychiatrists or psychologists, as defined in section 632.005, or physicians with a minimum of one year training or experience in providing treatment or services to persons with an intellectual disability or developmental disability or mental illness, who are neither employees nor contractors of the department of mental health for purposes of performing the examination in question, to examine the accused, or shall direct the director of the department of mental health, or the director's designee, to have the accused so examined by one or more psychiatrists or psychologists, as defined in section 632.005, or physicians with a minimum of one year training or experience in providing treatment or services to persons with an intellectual disability or developmental disability or mental illness designated by the director, or the director's designee, as qualified to perform examinations pursuant to this chapter.  The order shall direct that written report or reports of such examination be filed with the clerk of the court.  No private psychiatrist, psychologist, or physician shall be appointed by the court unless such psychiatrist, psychologist or physician has consented to act.  The examinations ordered shall be made at such time and place and under such conditions as the court deems proper; except that, if the order directs the director of the department of mental health to have the accused examined, the director, or the director's designee, shall determine the time, place and conditions under which the examination shall be conducted.  The order may include provisions for the interview of witnesses and may require the provision of police reports to the department for use in evaluation.  If an examination provided in section 552.020 was made and the report of such examination included an opinion as to whether, at the time of the alleged criminal conduct, the accused, as a result of mental disease or defect, did not know or appreciate the nature, quality or wrongfulness of such accused's conduct or as a result of mental disease or defect was incapable of conforming such accused's conduct to the requirements of law, such report may be received in evidence, and no new examination shall be required by the court unless, in the discretion of the court, another examination is necessary.  If an examination is ordered pursuant to this section, the report shall contain the information required in subsections 3 and 5 of section 552.020.  Within ten days after receiving a copy of such report, both the accused and the state shall, upon written request, be entitled to an order granting them an examination of the accused by an examiner of such accused's or its own choosing and at such accused's or its expense.  The clerk of the court shall deliver copies of the report or reports to the prosecuting or circuit attorney and to the accused or his counsel.  No reports required by this subsection shall be public records or be open to the public.  Any examination performed pursuant to this subsection shall be completed and the results shall be filed with the court within sixty days of the date it is received by the department or private psychiatrist, psychologist or physician unless the court, for good cause, orders otherwise.

  4.  If the report contains the recommendation that the accused should be held in custody in a suitable hospital facility pending trial, and if the accused is not admitted to bail, or released on other conditions, the court may order that the accused be committed to or held in a suitable hospital facility pending trial.

  5.  No statement made by the accused in the course of any such examination and no information received by any physician or other person in the course thereof, whether such examination was made with or without the consent of the accused or upon the accused's motion or upon that of others, shall be admitted in evidence against the accused on the issue of whether the accused committed the act charged against the accused in any criminal proceeding then or thereafter pending in any court, state or federal.  The statement or information shall be admissible in evidence for or against the accused only on the issue of the accused's mental condition, whether or not it would otherwise be deemed to be a privileged communication.  If the statement or information is admitted for or against the accused on the issue of the accused's mental condition, the court shall, both orally at the time of its admission and later by instruction, inform the jury that it must not consider such statement or information as any evidence of whether the accused committed the act charged against the accused.

  6.  All persons are presumed to be free of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility for their conduct, whether or not previously adjudicated in this or any other state to be or to have been sexual or social psychopaths, or incompetent; provided, however, the court may admit evidence presented at such adjudication based on its probative value.  The issue of whether any person had a mental disease or defect excluding responsibility for such person's conduct is one for the trier of fact to decide upon the introduction of substantial evidence of lack of such responsibility.  But, in the absence of such evidence, the presumption shall be conclusive.  Upon the introduction of substantial evidence of lack of such responsibility, the presumption shall not disappear and shall alone be sufficient to take that issue to the trier of fact.  The jury shall be instructed as to the existence and nature of such presumption when requested by the state and, where the issue of such responsibility is one for the jury to decide, the jury shall be told that the burden rests upon the accused to show by a preponderance or greater weight of the credible evidence that the defendant was suffering from a mental disease or defect excluding responsibility at the time of the conduct charged against the defendant.  At the request of the defense the jury shall be instructed by the court as to the contents of subsection 2 of section 552.040.

  7.  When the accused is acquitted on the ground of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, the verdict and the judgment shall so state as well as state the offense for which the accused was acquitted.  The clerk of the court shall furnish a copy of any judgment or order of commitment to the department of mental health pursuant to this section to the criminal records central repository pursuant to section 43.503.

­­--------

(L. 1963 p. 674 § 3, A.L. 1969 p. 572, A.L. 1980 H.B. 1724, A.L. 1985 S.B. 265, A.L. 1993 S.B. 180, A.L. 1994 S.B. 763, A.L. 1999 H.B. 328, A.L. 2011 H.B. 555 merged with H.B. 648, A.L. 2023 S.B. 106)

(1969) The purpose of this section is to prevent the surprise use of the defense of insanity precluding adequate rebuttal by the prosecution. State v. Holmes (Mo.), 439 S.W.2d 518.

(1973) Criminal defendant is presumed to be free of mental disease unless defendant introduces substantial evidence of lack of responsibility, whereupon the matter becomes one for the trier of facts. In absence of such evidence, the presumption is conclusive. State v. Bacon (A.), 501 S.W.2d 499.

(1974) When the General Assembly adopted provisions of the Model Penal Code, it did so with the intention of adopting the accompanying interpretation thereof by the drafters of that provision. State v. Anderson (Mo. banc), 515 S.W.2d 534.

(1981) Subsection 3 of section 552.030 is an exception to the general bar enunciated in 552.020 precluding use of statements made by the accused in the course of any examination or treatment on the issue of guilt. State v. Strubberg (Mo.), 616 S.W.2d 809.

(1981) The accused, for the purpose of attempting to establish his partial responsibility or his diminished capacity, may introduce evidence obtained in the section 552.020 examination.  State v. Strubberg (Mo.), 616 S.W.2d 809.

(1981) The partial responsibility doctrine may not be used by a defendant to avoid all criminal responsibility for his acts; to expunge himself of all criminal responsibility by reason of a mental disease or defect, the defendant must plead not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and must comply with all the conditions of the statute. State v. Strubberg (Mo.), 616 S.W.2d 809.