Committee holds HB 476 to study restoring narrow insanity defense; members cite capacity, public‑safety concerns

Representative Carol Spackman Moss on Tuesday presented House Bill 476, a narrowly drawn proposal to restore a not‑guilty‑by‑reason‑of‑insanity defense for some defendants charged with first‑degree felonies, telling the committee the measure grew out of a local case in which a seriously mentally ill neighbor killed his parents while psychotic.

Mark Moffett of the Defense Lawyers Association co‑presented the bill and said it would expand Utah’s current mens rea‑only approach to include the classic inability to understand the nature and quality of an act or the wrongfulness of the act (a M'Naghten‑style standard). He described several limiting features: eligibility only for first‑degree felonies; diagnosis‑level limits to psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar I with psychotic features and PTSD with psychotic features; exclusion of personality disorders and voluntary drug‑induced psychosis; appointment of two forensic examiners; and a clear‑and‑convincing evidentiary burden on defendants.

Tyler Derns, a forensic psychiatrist who directs a university forensic program, told the committee that when people judged NGRI (not guilty by reason of insanity) receive treatment and supervision their recidivism rates fall substantially and that properly trained evaluators use malingering testing and long record reviews to guard against false claims.

Neil Hamilton, a criminal defense attorney who represents the family in the case the sponsor discussed, said emotionally that Utah currently “puts people in prison who are sick’’ rather than providing hospital‑based treatment. He urged the committee to restore an insanity defense similar to the approach used in most states while acknowledging the state hospital would need expanded capacity to implement it.

Carl Holland, executive director of the Statewide Association of Prosecutors, said prosecutors want mentally ill people to get treatment but expressed concern the bill’s wrongfulness prong could be applied too broadly in violent cases and emphasized practical limits: “We only have one place in the state. It’s the state hospital, and those beds are full,’’ he said, estimating the state has a few hundred beds available overall.

Family advocates and mitigation specialists — including Deborah Widmer, Erin Bigler and Sherry Whitworth — described the experience of caring for people with severe mental illness and urged safeguards that prioritize community safety while improving access to forensic treatment. Public commenters joining online raised definitional and procedural worries, including how the bill’s new definitions might interact with other code sections and whether determinations should involve juries.

After extended discussion about clinical eligibility, definitions and the state’s capacity to house and treat individuals committed following an NGRI finding, Representative Glynn offered a substitute motion to hold the bill. The committee approved the substitute motion 7–2. Later the committee voted to add ‘‘insanity defense amendments’’ — including study of expanding state‑hospital beds and related prison funding tradeoffs — as an interim study item for further work.

The committee did not take final action to change the statutory insanity standard. The bill will be the subject of further study in the interim, with members asking for more detail on hospital capacity, civil‑commitment placements and how the proposed language would be applied in practice.