Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-13

Current with legislation from the 2024 Regular and Special Sessions.

Section 53a-13 - Lack of capacity due to mental disease or defect as affirmative defense

(a) In any prosecution for an offense, it shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant, at the time the defendant committed the proscribed act or acts, lacked substantial capacity, as a result of mental disease or defect, either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to control his conduct within the requirements of the law.

(b)

(1) It shall not be a defense under this section if such mental disease or defect was proximately caused by the voluntary ingestion, inhalation or injection of intoxicating liquor or any drug or substance, or any combination thereof, unless such drug was prescribed for the defendant by a prescribing practitioner, as defined in section 20-571, and was used in accordance with the directions of such prescription.

(2) No defendant may claim as a defense under this section that such mental disease or defect was based solely on the discovery of, knowledge about or potential disclosure of the victim's actual or perceived sex, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, including under circumstances in which the victim made an unwanted, nonforcible, romantic or sexual advance toward the defendant, or if the defendant and victim dated or had a romantic relationship.

(c) As used in this section, (1) the terms mental disease or defect do not include (A) an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct, or (B) pathological or compulsive gambling, and (2) "gender identity or expression" means gender identity or expression, as defined in section 53a-181i.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-13

(1969, P.A. 828, S. 13; P.A. 79-49; P.A. 81-301, S. 1; P.A. 83-486, S. 1; P.A. 95-264 , S. 64 .)

Amended by P.A. 23-0019, S. 16 of the Connecticut Acts of the 2023 Regular Session, eff. 7/1/2023.

Amended by P.A. 21-0192, S. 12 of the Connecticut Acts of the 2021 Regular Session, eff. 7/13/2021.

Amended by P.A. 20-0004, S. 11 of the 2020 July Special Session, eff. 1/1/2021.

Amended by P.A. 19-0027, S. 1 of the Connecticut Acts of the 2019 Regular Session, eff. 10/1/2019.

Cited. 169 C. 13 . Trial court did not err in concluding that the evidence was inadequate to raise the reasonable doubt as to defendant's sanity necessary to warrant submitting the issue to the jury. 173 Conn. 35 . Once substantial evidence tending to prove insanity is introduced, the presumption that defendant was sane loses all operative effect. Id., 140. Whether defendant has put his sanity in issue is a question of law, and once the sanity of defendant has become an issue, the state has the burden of proving defendant sane beyond a reasonable doubt. 175 Conn. 204 . Cited. 176 Conn. 224 . State's affirmative evidence was sufficient to support conclusion that the state had established sanity beyond a reasonable doubt. 178 Conn. 480 . Contains only standard to determine insanity; previously accepted common law definitions and the "Durham" rule included in court instructions constituted harmful error. Id., 626. Defendant is entitled to a theory of defense instruction as a matter of law when evidence under section is before jury. Id., 704. Cited. 182 C. 142 ; Id., 603; 185 C. 402 ; 187 C. 73 ; Id., 199; 189 C. 360 ; 191 C. 73 ; Id., 636; 192 C. 571; 193 C. 70 ; Id., 474; 196 C. 430 ; 198 C. 53 ; Id., 77; Id., 124; Id., 314; Id., 386; Id., 598; 200 C. 607 ; 201 Conn. 190 ; Id., 211; 202 C. 86 ; 203 Conn. 212 ; 206 C. 229 ; 208 C. 125 ; 209 Conn. 75 ; Id., 416; 211 C. 151 ; Id., 591; 218 C. 151 ; Id., 349; Id., 766; 225 C. 114 ; Id., 450; 227 C. 448 ; Id., 456; 228 Conn. 281 ; 229 Conn. 328 ; 230 Conn. 183 ; Id., 400; 234 Conn. 139 ; 242 C. 605 . Defendant entitled to an instruction defining "wrongfulness" in terms of societal morality when, in light of the evidence, the distinction between illegality and societal morality bears upon defendant's insanity claim. 254 C. 88 . The inclusion in the court's charge of language concerning defendant's capacity to distinguish right from wrong, which involved the abandoned M'Naghten test, was error. 1 CA 697 . Cited. 8 CA 307 ; 10 CA 302 ; 12 Conn.App. 32 ; 14 Conn.App. 511 ; 20 Conn.App. 342 ; 22 CA 669 ; 46 CA 486 ; Id., 734. State does not have to produce expert witnesses in order to sustain a conviction against a claim of insanity but may rely upon all the evidence in the case to carry its burden. 33 CS 704 . Subsec. (a): Cited. 201 Conn. 174 . Does not violate due process prohibition against relieving state of its burden of proving every element of crime beyond a reasonable doubt; court finds no constitutional requirement that sanity be considered an essential element of crime to be proved by state. 225 Conn. 450 . Cited. 236 Conn. 189 . Cited. 35 CA 94 ; judgment reversed, see 235 C. 185 ; 44 CA 70 . Defendant not entitled to a jury instruction that distinguishes between legal and societal standards of wrongfulness if defendant fails to present any evidence that, at the time of the killing, he was aware that his actions were illegal but believed that they did not offend societal morality. 50 CA 312. Subsec. (b): Court's failure to define proximate cause as it related to Subsec. did not constitute a manifest injustice to defendant that impaired the effectiveness or integrity of the trial so as to warrant plain error review. 62 CA 256.

See Sec. 54-89a re court instructions to jury.