HRS §704-408
When a mental health report must go to the jury
If a court-ordered or defense-chosen mental health report says the defendant's mental condition made it hard to know right from wrong or follow the law, the judge must let the jury or fact-finder decide the mental health defense at trial. This section only sets that rule.
courts
The statute, as written — Determination of irresponsibility
If the report of the examiners filed pursuant to section 704-404, or the report of examiners of the defendant's choice under section 704-409, states that the defendant at the time of the conduct alleged was affected by a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect that substantially impaired the defendant's capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the defendant's conduct or to conform the defendant's conduct to the requirements of law, the court shall submit the defense of physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect to the jury or the trier of fact at the trial of the charge against the defendant. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1980, c 222, §1(3); gen ch 1993; am L 2006, c 230, §9] COMMENTARY ON §704-408 This section provides for the direct qualified acquittal of the defendant when the report filed pursuant to §704-404 satisfies the court that at the time of the conduct alleged the defendant suffered from a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect which precluded responsibility. A hearing shall be had on the issue of the defendant's responsibility if it is requested by either party or the court. If the court is satisfied on the basis of the report or the hearing or both that the defendant should not be held responsible for the conduct alleged, it shall, upon motion by the defendant, acquit the defendant. Thus, a trial in such cases will be avoided. If the defendant maintains that the defendant did not engage in the conduct alleged, or has a defense in addition to that excluding responsibility, the defendant can, of course, withhold the motion and the case will proceed to trial. The section changes the prior law in that it vests the power of direct acquittal in the court and does not make it dependent on prosecutorial discretion.[1] SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §704-408 Act 222, Session Laws 1980, amended the section to require the submission of the insanity defense to the trier of fact at the trial. The intent was to eliminate bifurcated trials on the insanity defense and to have all factual issues, including insanity, heard at one trial. Conference Committee Report No. 38-80 (72-80). Act 230, Session Laws 2006, made technical nonsubstantive amendments to this section.
Sections this one refers to
§704-404 Court-ordered mental exams when a defendant may be unfit for trial
§704-409 Letting the defendant see their own experts
LawTrove is not legal advice. The summary above is a computer-generated restatement — the authoritative text is the official version linked above.