Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Criminal Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances narrow 'special mitigation' for extreme delusions in criminal cases
Summary
After a Committee of the Whole hearing with an Attorney General's Office attorney, the Utah Senate advanced Senate Bill 20, which would allow a one‑degree reduction in criminal charge where a defendant was so delusional they believed they were defending their life; the measure passed the Senate and moves to third reading.
Senate Bill 20 moved forward in the Utah State Senate on Jan. 22, 1999, after a Committee of the Whole hearing featuring Creighton Horton of the Utah Attorney General's Office. The Senate recorded a unanimous Senate vote to advance the bill to the third‑reading calendar.
Proponents cast SB20 as a narrowly drawn change to Utah's mental‑defense law. "First of all, we we require that it would only reduce the level of offense 1 degree from the offense the person was otherwise charged with and would be convicted of," Mr. Creighton Horton told the Senate, summarizing the bill's key limit. Horton said the provision is intended for defendants whose delusions made them believe they were defending their lives and that the statute would not operate more broadly.
Horton described the burden as resting with the defense: "We put the burden on the defense to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that, in fact, the defendant was mentally ill and had a delusion at the time of the act," he said. Under the proposal, that showing could reduce an offense by one degree (for example, murder down to manslaughter) but would not produce a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity.
During questioning senators pressed whether the provision would affect competency, appeals or high‑profile cases. Horton and the bill's sponsors repeatedly said the change applies only to the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offense and would not alter competency determinations or appellate procedure. Horton said the bill was drafted narrowly to exclude cases like the Lafferty matter and to guard against opportunistic claims.
Supporters said the change reinforces Utah's existing strict approach to mental defenses while providing limited relief for exceptionally delusional defendants; opponents asked for caution and emphasized safeguards on standards of proof. After debate the Senate called the question and the presiding officer announced that SB20 "has 29 I vote, which is unanimous" and that it will proceed on the third‑reading calendar.
The next procedural step is third reading in the Senate; the House will be notified after final Senate action.
