GA Code § 16-3-2 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses|Chapter 3 - Defenses to Criminal Prosecutions|Article 1 - Responsibility|§ 16-3-2. Mental Capacity; Insanity

 A person shall not be found guilty of a crime if, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the person did not have mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to such act, omission, or negligence.   (Code 1933, § 26-702, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.)   Cross references.   - Mental capacity to stand trial; release of competency evaluation to prosecuting attorney, § 17-7-129.    Mental capacity as it relates to competency to stand trial and as it relates to culpability for criminal acts, § 17-7-130.    Proceedings upon plea of insanity or mental incompetency, § 17-7-131.   Law reviews.   - For article, "The Georgia Law of Insanity," see 3 Ga. B.J. 28 (1941). For article discussing the theory of insanity in criminal law, see 15 Mercer L. Rev. 399 (1964). For annual survey on criminal law, see 65 Mercer L. Rev. 79 (2013). For article, "Annual Survey of Georgia Law: June 1, 2015 - May 31, 2016: Special Contribution: Georgia's Safe Harbor Ruling for Affirmative Defenses in Criminal Cases Should Be Revisited," see 68 Mercer L. Rev. 35 (2016). For article, "An Empirical Assessment of Georgia's Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard to Determine Intellectual Disability in Capital Cases," see 33 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 553 (2017). For note discussing criminal responsibility and mental illness as a defense in Georgia, see 23 Ga. B. J. 538 (1961). For note comparing the M'Naghten Rule and the irresistible impulse test for legal tests of insanity, see 14 Mercer L. Rev. 418 (1963). For comment on Nelson v. State, 151 N.W.2d 694 (Wis. 1967), as to constitutionality of appointment of general practitioner as an expert witness on issue of defendant's sanity, see 19 Mercer L. Rev. 263 (1968). For comment, "Saving the Deific Decree Exception to the Insanity Defense in Illinois: How a Broad Interpretation of 'Religious Command' May Cure Establishment Clause Concerns," see 46 J. Marshall L. Rev. 56 (2013).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   ANALYSIS    General Consideration   Application    OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL   Definitions of insanity are inapplicable to instructions to physician.    - In view of fact that former Code 1933, § 27-2602 (see now O.C.G.A. § 17-10-61) specifically requires that inquiry into whether person convicted of capital felony offense has become insane be directed to alleged insanity occurring subsequent to conviction, definitions of insanity as stated in former Code 1933, §§ 26-702 and 26-703 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 16-3-2 and16-3-3) are inapplicable and should not be given in written instructions to physicians appointed pursuant to former Code 1933, § 27-2602 (see now O.C.G.A. § 17-10-61); since basic issue is the individual's sanity at a time subsequent to conviction, or in effect, the person's present sanity, the appropriate test should be that as employed upon a special plea of insanity. 1976 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 76-123.   RESEARCH REFERENCES   Am. Jur. 2d.   - 21 Am. Jur. 2d, Criminal Law, § 50 et seq. 29 Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, § 437. 29A Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence, § 871 et seq. 75 Am. Jur. 2d, Trial, § 275. 75A Am. Jur. 2d, Trial, § 600.   Defendant's Competency to Stand Trial, 40 POF2d 171.   C.J.S.   - 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law: Substantive Principles, § 127.   ALR.    - Test of present insanity which will prevent trial for crime or punishment after conviction, 3 A.L.R. 94.    Remedy of one convicted of crime while insane, 10 A.L.R. 213; 121 A.L.R. 267.    Subnormal mentality as defense to crime, 44 A.L.R. 584.    Constitutionality of statute relating to insanity as defense to crime, 74 A.L.R. 265.    Irresistible impulse as excuse for crime, 173 A.L.R. 391.   Presumption of continuing insanity as applied to accused in criminal case, 27 A.L.R.2d 121.   Prejudicial effect of argument or comment that accused, if acquitted on ground of insanity, would be released from institution to which committed, 44 A.L.R.2d 978.   Effect of voluntary drug intoxication upon criminal responsibility, 73 A.L.R.2d 12.   Modern status of rules as to burden and sufficiency of proof of mental irresponsibility in criminal case, 17 A.L.R.3d 146.   Mental or emotional condition as diminishing responsibility for crime, 22 A.L.R.3d 1228.   XYY syndrome as affecting criminal responsibility, 42 A.L.R.3d 1414.   Drug addiction or related mental state as defense to criminal charge, 73 A.L.R.3d 16.   Necessity or propriety of bifurcated criminal trial on issue of insanity defense, 1 A.L.R.4th 884.   Modern status of test of criminal responsibility - state cases, 9 A.L.R.4th 526.   Propriety of transferring patient found not guilty by reason of insanity to less restrictive confinement, 43 A.L.R.5th 777.   Adequacy of defense counsel's representation of criminal client - pretrial conduct or conduct at unspecified time regarding issues of insanity, 72 A.L.R.5th 109.   Qualification of nonmedical psychologist to testify as to mental condition or competency, 72 A.L.R.5th 529.   Adequacy of defense counsel's representation of criminal client - conduct occurring at time of trial regarding issues of diminished capacity, intoxication, and unconsciousness, 78 A.L.R.5th 197.   Adequacy of defense counsel's representation of criminal client - pretrial conduct or conduct at unspecified time regarding issues of diminished capacity, intoxication, and unconsciousness, 79 A.L.R.5th 419.   Amnesia as affecting defendant's competency to stand trial, 100 A.L.R.6th 535.   Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as defense to murder, assault, or other violent crime, 4 A.L.R.7th 5.