Bill 3040

                    Current Status

Bill Number:               3040
Ratification Number:       148
Act Number                 93
Introducing Body:          House
Subject:                   Defense of insanity made affirmative
                           defense and burden of proof of this
                           defense

(A93, R148, H3040)

AN ACT TO AMEND SECTIONS 17-24-10 AND 17-24-30, BOTH AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE DEFENSE OF INSANITY, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE WHICH THE DEFENDANT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING BY A PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 17-24-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO A VERDICT OR PLEA OF GUILTY BUT MENTALLY ILL, SO AS TO FURTHER PROVIDE FOR THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN THESE CASES AND FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH A COURT MAY ACCEPT THIS PLEA.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

Defense of insanity made affirmative defense and burden of proof of this defense

SECTION 1. Section 17-24-10 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 323 of 1988, is further amended to read:

"Section 17-24-10. (A) It is an affirmative defense to a prosecution for a crime that, at the time of the commission of the act constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of mental disease or defect, lacked the capacity to distinguish moral or legal right from moral or legal wrong or to recognize the particular act charged as morally or legally wrong.

(B) The defendant has the burden of proving the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the evidence.

(C) Evidence of a mental disease or defect that is manifested only by repeated criminal or other antisocial conduct is not sufficient to establish the defense of insanity."

Burden of proof and manner of acceptance of guilty but mentally ill verdicts and pleas

SECTION 2. Section 17-24-20 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 323 of 1988, is further amended to read:

"Section 17-24-20. (A) A defendant is guilty but mentally ill if, at the time of the commission of the act constituting the offense, he had the capacity to distinguish right from wrong or to recognize his act as being wrong as defined in Section 17-24-10(A), but because of mental disease or defect he lacked sufficient capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.

(B) To return a verdict of 'guilty but mentally ill' the burden of proof is upon the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to the trier of fact that the defendant committed the crime, and the burden of proof is upon the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that when he committed the crime he was mentally ill as defined in subsection (A).

(C) The verdict of guilty but mentally ill may be rendered only during the phase of a trial which determines guilt or innocence and is not a form of verdict which may be rendered in the penalty phase.

(D) A court may not accept a plea of guilty but mentally ill unless, after a hearing, the court makes a finding upon the record that the defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that when he committed the crime he was mentally ill as provided in Section 17-24-20(A)."

Defense of insanity made affirmative defense

SECTION 3. Section 17-24-30 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 323 of 1988, is further amended to read:

"Section 17-24-30. In a prosecution for a crime when the affirmative defense of insanity is raised sufficiently by the defendant, or when sufficient evidence of a mental disease or defect of the defendant is admitted into evidence, the trier of fact shall find under the applicable law, and the verdict must so state, whether the defendant is:

(1) guilty;

(2) not guilty;

(3) not guilty by reason of insanity; or

(4) guilty but mentally ill."

Time effective

SECTION 4. This act takes effect three months after approval of the Governor.