| 1 | 1 | | REFERENCE TITLE: death penalty serious mental illness State of Arizona Senate Fifty-sixth Legislature First Regular Session 2023 SB 1474 Introduced by Senators Mendez: Diaz, Gabaldn, Hernandez, Sundareshan, Tern; Representative Salman An Act amending section 13-753, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to the death penalty. (TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE) |
|---|
| 2 | 2 | | |
|---|
| 3 | 3 | | |
|---|
| 4 | 4 | | |
|---|
| 5 | 5 | | |
|---|
| 6 | 6 | | |
|---|
| 7 | 7 | | |
|---|
| 8 | 8 | | |
|---|
| 9 | 9 | | REFERENCE TITLE: death penalty serious mental illness |
|---|
| 10 | 10 | | State of Arizona Senate Fifty-sixth Legislature First Regular Session 2023 |
|---|
| 11 | 11 | | SB 1474 |
|---|
| 12 | 12 | | Introduced by Senators Mendez: Diaz, Gabaldn, Hernandez, Sundareshan, Tern; Representative Salman |
|---|
| 13 | 13 | | |
|---|
| 14 | 14 | | REFERENCE TITLE: death penalty serious mental illness |
|---|
| 15 | 15 | | |
|---|
| 16 | 16 | | |
|---|
| 17 | 17 | | |
|---|
| 18 | 18 | | |
|---|
| 19 | 19 | | |
|---|
| 20 | 20 | | |
|---|
| 21 | 21 | | |
|---|
| 22 | 22 | | |
|---|
| 23 | 23 | | |
|---|
| 24 | 24 | | State of Arizona |
|---|
| 25 | 25 | | |
|---|
| 26 | 26 | | Senate |
|---|
| 27 | 27 | | |
|---|
| 28 | 28 | | Fifty-sixth Legislature |
|---|
| 29 | 29 | | |
|---|
| 30 | 30 | | First Regular Session |
|---|
| 31 | 31 | | |
|---|
| 32 | 32 | | 2023 |
|---|
| 33 | 33 | | |
|---|
| 34 | 34 | | |
|---|
| 35 | 35 | | |
|---|
| 36 | 36 | | |
|---|
| 37 | 37 | | |
|---|
| 38 | 38 | | |
|---|
| 39 | 39 | | |
|---|
| 40 | 40 | | SB 1474 |
|---|
| 41 | 41 | | |
|---|
| 42 | 42 | | |
|---|
| 43 | 43 | | |
|---|
| 44 | 44 | | Introduced by |
|---|
| 45 | 45 | | |
|---|
| 46 | 46 | | Senators Mendez: Diaz, Gabaldn, Hernandez, Sundareshan, Tern; Representative Salman |
|---|
| 47 | 47 | | |
|---|
| 48 | 48 | | |
|---|
| 49 | 49 | | |
|---|
| 50 | 50 | | |
|---|
| 51 | 51 | | |
|---|
| 52 | 52 | | An Act |
|---|
| 53 | 53 | | |
|---|
| 54 | 54 | | |
|---|
| 55 | 55 | | |
|---|
| 56 | 56 | | amending section 13-753, Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to the death penalty. |
|---|
| 57 | 57 | | |
|---|
| 58 | 58 | | |
|---|
| 59 | 59 | | |
|---|
| 60 | 60 | | |
|---|
| 61 | 61 | | |
|---|
| 62 | 62 | | (TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE) |
|---|
| 63 | 63 | | |
|---|
| 64 | 64 | | |
|---|
| 65 | 65 | | |
|---|
| 66 | 66 | | Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Section 13-753, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: START_STATUTE13-753. Mental evaluations of capital defendants; hearing; appeal; definitions A. In any case in which the state files a notice of intent to seek the death penalty, a person who is found to have an intellectual disability or to have had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense pursuant to this section shall not be sentenced to death but shall be sentenced to life or natural life. B. If the state files a notice of intent to seek the death penalty, the court, unless the defendant objects, shall appoint a prescreening psychological expert in order to determine the defendant's intelligence quotient or whether the defendant had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense using current community, nationally and culturally accepted intelligence and mental health testing procedures. The prescreening psychological expert shall submit a written report of the intelligence quotient determination or the assessment of whether the defendant had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense, or both, to the court within ten days of the testing of the defendant. If the defendant objects to the prescreening, the defendant waives the right to a pretrial determination of status. The waiver does not preclude the defendant from offering evidence of the defendant's intellectual disability or serious mental illness in the penalty phase. On a showing of good cause, the court may grant the defendant's request to delay the prescreening. C. If the prescreening psychological expert determines that the defendant's intelligence quotient is higher than seventy-five or that the defendant did not have a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense, the notice of intent to seek the death penalty shall not be dismissed on the ground that the defendant has an intellectual disability or had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense. If the prescreening psychological expert determines that the defendant's intelligence quotient is higher than seventy-five or that the defendant did not have a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense, the report shall be sealed by the court and be available only to the defendant. The report shall be released on the motion of any party if the defendant introduces the report in the present case or is convicted of an offense in the present case and the sentence is final. A prescreening determination that the defendant's intelligence quotient is higher than seventy-five or that the defendant did not have a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense does not prevent the defendant from introducing evidence of the defendant's serious mental illness, intellectual disability or diminished mental capacity at the penalty phase of the sentencing proceeding. D. If the prescreening psychological expert determines that the defendant's intelligence quotient is seventy-five or less or that the defendant had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense, the trial court, within ten days of receiving the written report, shall order the state and the defendant to each nominate three experts in intellectual disabilities or mental health, or both, or jointly nominate a single expert in intellectual disabilities or mental health, or both. The trial court shall appoint one expert in intellectual disabilities or mental health, or both, nominated by the state and one expert in intellectual disabilities or mental health, or both, nominated by the defendant, or a single expert in intellectual disabilities or mental health jointly nominated by the state and the defendant, none of whom made the prescreening determination of the defendant's intelligence quotient or whether the defendant had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense. The trial court, in its discretion, may appoint an additional expert in intellectual disabilities or mental health, or both, who was neither nominated by the state nor the defendant, and who did not make the prescreening determination of the defendant's intelligence quotient or whether the defendant had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense. Within forty-five days after the trial court orders the state and the defendant to nominate experts in intellectual disabilities or mental health, or both, or on the appointment of such experts, whichever is later, the state and the defendant shall provide to the experts in intellectual disabilities and the court any available records that may be relevant to the defendant's status. The court may extend the deadline for providing records on good cause shown by the state or defendant. E. Not less than twenty days after receipt of the records provided pursuant to subsection D of this section, or twenty days after the expiration of the deadline for providing the records, whichever is later, each expert in intellectual disability or mental health, or both, shall examine the defendant using current community, nationally and culturally accepted physical, developmental, psychological and intelligence testing procedures, for the purpose of determining whether the defendant has an intellectual disability or had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense. Within fifteen days of after examining the defendant, each expert in intellectual disabilities or mental health, or both, shall submit a written report to the trial court that includes the expert's opinion as to whether the defendant has an intellectual disability or had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense. On a showing of good cause, the court may allow an expert more time to review the records before conducting the examination. F. If the scores on all the tests for intelligence quotient administered to the defendant are above seventy, the notice of intent to seek the death penalty shall not be dismissed on the ground that the defendant has an intellectual disability. If the results of the tests for serious mental illness administered to the defendant establish that the defendant did not have a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense, the notice to seek the death penalty shall not be dismissed on the ground that the defendant had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense. This does not preclude the defendant from introducing evidence of the defendant's serious mental illness, intellectual disability or diminished mental capacity at the penalty phase of the sentencing proceeding. G. No Not less than thirty days after the experts in intellectual disabilities or mental health, or both, submit reports to the court and before trial, the trial court shall hold a hearing to determine if whether the defendant has an intellectual disability or had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense. At the hearing, the defendant has the burden of proving intellectual disability or serious mental illness by clear and convincing evidence. A determination by the trial court that the defendant's intelligence quotient is sixty-five or lower establishes a rebuttable presumption that the defendant has an intellectual disability. This subsection does not preclude a defendant with an intelligence quotient of seventy or below from proving intellectual disability by clear and convincing evidence. H. If the trial court finds that the defendant has an intellectual disability or had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense, the trial court shall dismiss the intent to seek the death penalty, shall not impose a sentence of death on the defendant if the defendant is convicted of first degree murder and shall dismiss one of the attorneys appointed under rule 6.2, Arizona rules of criminal procedure, unless the court finds that there is good cause to retain both attorneys. If the trial court finds that the defendant does not have an intellectual disability or did not have a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense, the court's finding does not prevent the defendant from introducing evidence of the defendant's serious mental illness, intellectual disability or diminished mental capacity at the penalty phase of the sentencing proceeding. I. Within ten days after the trial court makes a finding on intellectual disability or serious mental illness, the state or the defendant may file a petition for special action with the Arizona court of appeals pursuant to the rules of procedure for special actions. The filing of the petition for special action is governed by the rules of procedure for special actions, except that the court of appeals shall exercise jurisdiction and decide the merits of the claims raised. J. This section applies to all capital sentencing proceedings. K. Any statement made during an evaluation or hearing conducted pursuant to this section is not admissible in any criminal proceeding to determine the defendant's guilt but either party may call an examiner as a witness in the criminal proceeding. K. L. For the purposes of this section, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. "Active symptoms" means symptoms of the disorders listed in paragraph 6, subdivision (b) of this subsection and includes any of the following: (a) Delusions. (b) Hallucinations. (c) Extremely disorganized thinking. (d) Mania. (e) Very significant disruptions of consciousness, memory, perception and environment. 1. 2. "Adaptive behavior" means the effectiveness or degree to which the defendant meets the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of the defendant's age and cultural group. 2. 3. "Expert in intellectual disabilities" means a psychologist or physician licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 13, 17 or 19.1 with at least five years' experience in the testing or testing assessment, evaluation and diagnosis of intellectual disabilities. 3. 4. "Intellectual disability" means a condition based on a mental deficit that involves significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with significant impairment in adaptive behavior, where the onset of the foregoing conditions occurred before the defendant reached the age of eighteen years of age. 4. 5. "Prescreening psychological expert" means a psychologist licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 19.1 with at least five years' experience in the testing, evaluation and diagnosis of intellectual disabilities. 6. "Serious mental illness": (a) means active symptoms of a serious mental illness that substantially impair the defendant's capacity to DO any of the following: (i) Appreciate the nature, consequences or wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct. (ii) Exercise rational judgment in relation to the defendant's conduct. (iii) Conform the defendant's conduct to the requirements of the law. (b) INcludes one or more of the following disorders as classified in the most recent edition of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders published by the American psychiatric association: (i) Schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders. (ii) Bipolar disorder. (iii) Major depressive disorder. (iv) Delusional disorder. (v) Posttraumatic stress disorder. (vi) Traumatic brain injury. (c) Does not include a disorder manifested primarily by repeated criminal conduct or attributable solely to the acute effects of the voluntary use of alcohol or other drugs. 5. 7. "Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning" means a full scale intelligence quotient of seventy or lower. The court in determining the intelligence quotient shall take into account the margin of error for the test administered. END_STATUTE |
|---|
| 67 | 67 | | |
|---|
| 68 | 68 | | Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: |
|---|
| 69 | 69 | | |
|---|
| 70 | 70 | | Section 1. Section 13-753, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: |
|---|
| 71 | 71 | | |
|---|
| 72 | 72 | | START_STATUTE13-753. Mental evaluations of capital defendants; hearing; appeal; definitions |
|---|
| 73 | 73 | | |
|---|
| 74 | 74 | | A. In any case in which the state files a notice of intent to seek the death penalty, a person who is found to have an intellectual disability or to have had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense pursuant to this section shall not be sentenced to death but shall be sentenced to life or natural life. |
|---|
| 75 | 75 | | |
|---|
| 76 | 76 | | B. If the state files a notice of intent to seek the death penalty, the court, unless the defendant objects, shall appoint a prescreening psychological expert in order to determine the defendant's intelligence quotient or whether the defendant had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense using current community, nationally and culturally accepted intelligence and mental health testing procedures. The prescreening psychological expert shall submit a written report of the intelligence quotient determination or the assessment of whether the defendant had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense, or both, to the court within ten days of the testing of the defendant. If the defendant objects to the prescreening, the defendant waives the right to a pretrial determination of status. The waiver does not preclude the defendant from offering evidence of the defendant's intellectual disability or serious mental illness in the penalty phase. On a showing of good cause, the court may grant the defendant's request to delay the prescreening. |
|---|
| 77 | 77 | | |
|---|
| 78 | 78 | | C. If the prescreening psychological expert determines that the defendant's intelligence quotient is higher than seventy-five or that the defendant did not have a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense, the notice of intent to seek the death penalty shall not be dismissed on the ground that the defendant has an intellectual disability or had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense. If the prescreening psychological expert determines that the defendant's intelligence quotient is higher than seventy-five or that the defendant did not have a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense, the report shall be sealed by the court and be available only to the defendant. The report shall be released on the motion of any party if the defendant introduces the report in the present case or is convicted of an offense in the present case and the sentence is final. A prescreening determination that the defendant's intelligence quotient is higher than seventy-five or that the defendant did not have a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense does not prevent the defendant from introducing evidence of the defendant's serious mental illness, intellectual disability or diminished mental capacity at the penalty phase of the sentencing proceeding. |
|---|
| 79 | 79 | | |
|---|
| 80 | 80 | | D. If the prescreening psychological expert determines that the defendant's intelligence quotient is seventy-five or less or that the defendant had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense, the trial court, within ten days of receiving the written report, shall order the state and the defendant to each nominate three experts in intellectual disabilities or mental health, or both, or jointly nominate a single expert in intellectual disabilities or mental health, or both. The trial court shall appoint one expert in intellectual disabilities or mental health, or both, nominated by the state and one expert in intellectual disabilities or mental health, or both, nominated by the defendant, or a single expert in intellectual disabilities or mental health jointly nominated by the state and the defendant, none of whom made the prescreening determination of the defendant's intelligence quotient or whether the defendant had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense. The trial court, in its discretion, may appoint an additional expert in intellectual disabilities or mental health, or both, who was neither nominated by the state nor the defendant, and who did not make the prescreening determination of the defendant's intelligence quotient or whether the defendant had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense. Within forty-five days after the trial court orders the state and the defendant to nominate experts in intellectual disabilities or mental health, or both, or on the appointment of such experts, whichever is later, the state and the defendant shall provide to the experts in intellectual disabilities and the court any available records that may be relevant to the defendant's status. The court may extend the deadline for providing records on good cause shown by the state or defendant. |
|---|
| 81 | 81 | | |
|---|
| 82 | 82 | | E. Not less than twenty days after receipt of the records provided pursuant to subsection D of this section, or twenty days after the expiration of the deadline for providing the records, whichever is later, each expert in intellectual disability or mental health, or both, shall examine the defendant using current community, nationally and culturally accepted physical, developmental, psychological and intelligence testing procedures, for the purpose of determining whether the defendant has an intellectual disability or had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense. Within fifteen days of after examining the defendant, each expert in intellectual disabilities or mental health, or both, shall submit a written report to the trial court that includes the expert's opinion as to whether the defendant has an intellectual disability or had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense. On a showing of good cause, the court may allow an expert more time to review the records before conducting the examination. |
|---|
| 83 | 83 | | |
|---|
| 84 | 84 | | F. If the scores on all the tests for intelligence quotient administered to the defendant are above seventy, the notice of intent to seek the death penalty shall not be dismissed on the ground that the defendant has an intellectual disability. If the results of the tests for serious mental illness administered to the defendant establish that the defendant did not have a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense, the notice to seek the death penalty shall not be dismissed on the ground that the defendant had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense. This does not preclude the defendant from introducing evidence of the defendant's serious mental illness, intellectual disability or diminished mental capacity at the penalty phase of the sentencing proceeding. |
|---|
| 85 | 85 | | |
|---|
| 86 | 86 | | G. No Not less than thirty days after the experts in intellectual disabilities or mental health, or both, submit reports to the court and before trial, the trial court shall hold a hearing to determine if whether the defendant has an intellectual disability or had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense. At the hearing, the defendant has the burden of proving intellectual disability or serious mental illness by clear and convincing evidence. A determination by the trial court that the defendant's intelligence quotient is sixty-five or lower establishes a rebuttable presumption that the defendant has an intellectual disability. This subsection does not preclude a defendant with an intelligence quotient of seventy or below from proving intellectual disability by clear and convincing evidence. |
|---|
| 87 | 87 | | |
|---|
| 88 | 88 | | H. If the trial court finds that the defendant has an intellectual disability or had a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense, the trial court shall dismiss the intent to seek the death penalty, shall not impose a sentence of death on the defendant if the defendant is convicted of first degree murder and shall dismiss one of the attorneys appointed under rule 6.2, Arizona rules of criminal procedure, unless the court finds that there is good cause to retain both attorneys. If the trial court finds that the defendant does not have an intellectual disability or did not have a serious mental illness at the time of the commission of the offense, the court's finding does not prevent the defendant from introducing evidence of the defendant's serious mental illness, intellectual disability or diminished mental capacity at the penalty phase of the sentencing proceeding. |
|---|
| 89 | 89 | | |
|---|
| 90 | 90 | | I. Within ten days after the trial court makes a finding on intellectual disability or serious mental illness, the state or the defendant may file a petition for special action with the Arizona court of appeals pursuant to the rules of procedure for special actions. The filing of the petition for special action is governed by the rules of procedure for special actions, except that the court of appeals shall exercise jurisdiction and decide the merits of the claims raised. |
|---|
| 91 | 91 | | |
|---|
| 92 | 92 | | J. This section applies to all capital sentencing proceedings. |
|---|
| 93 | 93 | | |
|---|
| 94 | 94 | | K. Any statement made during an evaluation or hearing conducted pursuant to this section is not admissible in any criminal proceeding to determine the defendant's guilt but either party may call an examiner as a witness in the criminal proceeding. |
|---|
| 95 | 95 | | |
|---|
| 96 | 96 | | K. L. For the purposes of this section, unless the context otherwise requires: |
|---|
| 97 | 97 | | |
|---|
| 98 | 98 | | 1. "Active symptoms" means symptoms of the disorders listed in paragraph 6, subdivision (b) of this subsection and includes any of the following: |
|---|
| 99 | 99 | | |
|---|
| 100 | 100 | | (a) Delusions. |
|---|
| 101 | 101 | | |
|---|
| 102 | 102 | | (b) Hallucinations. |
|---|
| 103 | 103 | | |
|---|
| 104 | 104 | | (c) Extremely disorganized thinking. |
|---|
| 105 | 105 | | |
|---|
| 106 | 106 | | (d) Mania. |
|---|
| 107 | 107 | | |
|---|
| 108 | 108 | | (e) Very significant disruptions of consciousness, memory, perception and environment. |
|---|
| 109 | 109 | | |
|---|
| 110 | 110 | | 1. 2. "Adaptive behavior" means the effectiveness or degree to which the defendant meets the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of the defendant's age and cultural group. |
|---|
| 111 | 111 | | |
|---|
| 112 | 112 | | 2. 3. "Expert in intellectual disabilities" means a psychologist or physician licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 13, 17 or 19.1 with at least five years' experience in the testing or testing assessment, evaluation and diagnosis of intellectual disabilities. |
|---|
| 113 | 113 | | |
|---|
| 114 | 114 | | 3. 4. "Intellectual disability" means a condition based on a mental deficit that involves significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with significant impairment in adaptive behavior, where the onset of the foregoing conditions occurred before the defendant reached the age of eighteen years of age. |
|---|
| 115 | 115 | | |
|---|
| 116 | 116 | | 4. 5. "Prescreening psychological expert" means a psychologist licensed pursuant to title 32, chapter 19.1 with at least five years' experience in the testing, evaluation and diagnosis of intellectual disabilities. |
|---|
| 117 | 117 | | |
|---|
| 118 | 118 | | 6. "Serious mental illness": |
|---|
| 119 | 119 | | |
|---|
| 120 | 120 | | (a) means active symptoms of a serious mental illness that substantially impair the defendant's capacity to DO any of the following: |
|---|
| 121 | 121 | | |
|---|
| 122 | 122 | | (i) Appreciate the nature, consequences or wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct. |
|---|
| 123 | 123 | | |
|---|
| 124 | 124 | | (ii) Exercise rational judgment in relation to the defendant's conduct. |
|---|
| 125 | 125 | | |
|---|
| 126 | 126 | | (iii) Conform the defendant's conduct to the requirements of the law. |
|---|
| 127 | 127 | | |
|---|
| 128 | 128 | | (b) INcludes one or more of the following disorders as classified in the most recent edition of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders published by the American psychiatric association: |
|---|
| 129 | 129 | | |
|---|
| 130 | 130 | | (i) Schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders. |
|---|
| 131 | 131 | | |
|---|
| 132 | 132 | | (ii) Bipolar disorder. |
|---|
| 133 | 133 | | |
|---|
| 134 | 134 | | (iii) Major depressive disorder. |
|---|
| 135 | 135 | | |
|---|
| 136 | 136 | | (iv) Delusional disorder. |
|---|
| 137 | 137 | | |
|---|
| 138 | 138 | | (v) Posttraumatic stress disorder. |
|---|
| 139 | 139 | | |
|---|
| 140 | 140 | | (vi) Traumatic brain injury. |
|---|
| 141 | 141 | | |
|---|
| 142 | 142 | | (c) Does not include a disorder manifested primarily by repeated criminal conduct or attributable solely to the acute effects of the voluntary use of alcohol or other drugs. |
|---|
| 143 | 143 | | |
|---|
| 144 | 144 | | 5. 7. "Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning" means a full scale intelligence quotient of seventy or lower. The court in determining the intelligence quotient shall take into account the margin of error for the test administered. END_STATUTE |
|---|