Tennessee § 39-11-501 - Insanity.

§ 39-11-501. Insanity.

It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature or wrongfulness of the defendant's acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by clear and convincing evidence. As used in this section, “mental disease or defect” does not include any abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. No expert witness may testify as to whether the defendant was or was not insane as set forth in subsection (a). Such ultimate issue is a matter for the trier of fact alone. Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1995, ch. 494, § 1. Sentencing Commission Comments. This section codifies the criteria of criminal insanity or mental responsibility which has been followed in Tennessee since the ruling in Graham v. State, 547 S.W.2d 531 (Tenn. 1977). The commission explicitly recognizes a distinction between those defendants who are capable of controlling their conduct and those who are not. The finder of fact must determine not only whether the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect but also whether the defendant's condition rendered him or her incapable of conforming his or her conduct to lawful standards or of appreciating the wrongfulness of that conduct. Thus, offenders who have the capacity and reason to control their behavior or appreciate the distinctions between lawful and unlawful conduct are responsible for their criminal acts. Subsection (b) follows the Graham rule by denying the defense to psychopaths, i.e., those repeat offenders without other medically discernible symptoms. Compiler's Notes. Acts 1995, ch. 494, § 2 provided that the amendments by that act apply to all offenses committed on or after July 1, 1995. The sentencing commission terminated June 30, 1995. Sentencing Commission Comments have been retained, but do not reflect 1995 or subsequent legislation. Cross-References. Justification excluding criminal responsibility, title 39, ch. 11, part 6. Rule Reference. This section is referred to in the Advisory Commission Comments under Rule 704 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. Textbooks. Tennessee Forms (Robinson, Ramsey and Harwell), Nos. 3-11-1, 3-12.2-6. Law Reviews. Criminal Appellate Procedure — Insanity Defense — The Proper Standard of Review When Reviewing a Jury Decision on Sanity (Kevin Thompson), 70 Tenn. L. Rev. 1213 (2003). Madness Alone Punishes the Madman: The Search For Moral Dignity in the Court's Competency Doctrine as Applied in Capital Cases, 79 Tenn. L. Rev. 461 (2012). Paine on Procedure: Expert Opinion and the Insanity Defense (Donald F. Paine), 49 Tenn. B.J. 27 (2013). Symposium: Competency for Execution: The Implications of a Communicative Model of Retribution, 76 Tenn. L. Rev. 713 (2009). The Criminalization of Mental Illness: How Theoretical Failures Create Real Problems in the Criminal Justice System, 62 Vand. L. Rev. 1053 (2009). The Red Velvet Swing Murder (Donald F. Paine), 35 No. 2 Tenn. B.J. 26 (1999). Attorney General Opinions. Constitutionality of proposed “guilty but excused from responsibility” verdict, OAG 99-116 (5/14/99).