Insanity Defense: Senate Committee on Criminal Justice
- Gray Rutledge
- May 6
- 2 min read
Texas’ currently strong statutory framework for managing individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) could be improved by implementing statewide minimum standards that address supervision requirements, data transparency, and public safety protections.
In Texas, individuals who are found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI), can be committed to a maximum-security mental health facility. Under Chapter 46C, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, these persons are subject to court-supervised commitment, treatment, and conditional release decisions involving the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC).
To prove insanity, in addition to the “impulse control” test, Texas courts use the standard established in the 1843 English case (M’Naghten Case, 8 Eng. Rep. 718) and the irresistible impulse test. The irresistible impulse test assesses whether a mental illness affected defendant’s control over his or her impulses to commit the wrong act. The M’Naghten rule adds the requirement for a determination of whether the defendant had the ability to discern right from wrong. The burden of proof for the defense rests with the defendant.
Article 46C.253, Code of Criminal Procedure, further requires courts to determine whether an acquitted individual has a severe mental illness and is likely to cause serious bodily injury to others. If proven by clear and convincing evidence, inpatient commitment is required. Courts may order outpatient supervision if inpatient care is not required as prescribed in Article 46C.263, Code of Criminal Procedure.
HHSC’s role is to provide forensic mental health services, including evaluation, treatment, and discharge recommendations of patients. Courts retain final authority over release decisions. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 46C.261(a), 46C.266(a). However, the United States Supreme Court has held that, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, states must prove both continued mental illness and dangerousness to retain an insanity acquittee indefinitely in a mental institution. See Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 77–78 (1992).
