HB 385: Improvements to Guilty but Mentally Ill Plea

This bill passed both chambers of the legislature unanimously. Review our tracker for more information.

Imagine you swiped an iPad from a child walking down the street, believing him to be a rogue CIA agent photographing you because you suffer from paranoid schizophrenia. Are you guilty of robbery? In Utah, yes, because you intended to take the kid’s personal property. In fact in Utah, and three other states, the only way to be found not guilty because of a mental illness is if you are so deluded that you were incapable of forming the requisite mens rea for the crime: intentional, knowing, reckless, or negligent.

However, Utah does allow people to plead “guilty but mentally ill.” If a defendant does so and remains mentally ill at sentencing, the court can commit the defendant to the Department of Health and Human Services to receive treatment, or sentence him to probation, jail, or prison, just like any other offender. If he’s not still mentally ill at sentencing, he also gets sentenced like any other offender.

Given that defendants may receive no benefit from a guilty but mentally ill plea, it is used in only a handful of Utah cases each year.

House Bill 385, sponsored by Representative Nelson Abbott, aims to improve how Utah sentences people who committed crimes while suffering from a serious mental illness.

Under this bill, if a defendant committed a crime while suffering from a mental illness and continues to be ill at the conclusion of the case, the court can defer sentencing for up to a year. The court can then order the defendant to comply with treatment and supervision mandates, which may include treatment in a secure setting. When either a year has elapsed or a defendant has reached maximum benefit or has failed to comply with treatment and supervision orders, the defendant is sentenced.  

By deferring sentencing and giving the defendant an opportunity to address the mental illness that led to the crime, the court is in a better position to determine what sentence would protect public safety and serve the interests of justice. If a defendant has improved radically and has demonstrated a commitment to staying well, there may be no reason to incarcerate the person. On the other hand, if the person has not participated in treatment and continues to cycle through periods of severe illness, a more restrictive setting may be the only option. In either case, deferring sentencing allows the judge to make a better-informed decision.

The bill represents the consensus of stakeholders in the mental health, criminal defense, and prosecution communities, all of whom recognize the need for improvement upon the current model. Libertas is proud to support this bill.