Admissibility of evidence; psychiatrists, psychologists, or
physicians; defendant's failure to communicate, participate, and
cooperate with court appointed medical witnesses
Sec. 2. (a) At the trial of a criminal case in which the defendant
intends to interpose the defense of insanity, evidence may be
introduced to prove the defendant's sanity or insanity at the time at
which the defendant is alleged to have committed the offense
charged in the indictment or information.
(b) When notice of an insanity defense is filed, the court shall
appoint two (2) or three (3) competent disinterested psychiatrists,
psychologists endorsed by the state psychology board as health
service providers in psychology, or physicians, at least one (1) of
whom must be a psychiatrist, to examine the defendant and to testify
at the trial. This testimony shall follow the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution and for the defense, including testimony
of any medical experts employed by the state or by the defense.
(c) If a defendant does not adequately communicate, participate,
and cooperate with the medical witnesses appointed by the court,
after being ordered to do so by the court, the defendant may not
present as evidence the testimony of any other medical witness:
(1) with whom the defendant adequately communicated,
participated, and cooperated; and
(2) whose opinion is based upon examinations of the defendant;
unless the defendant shows by a preponderance of the evidence that
the defendant's failure to communicate, participate, or cooperate with
the medical witnesses appointed by the court was caused by the
defendant's mental illness.
(d) The medical witnesses appointed by the court may be
cross-examined by both the prosecution and the defense, and each
side may introduce evidence in rebuttal to the testimony of such a
medical witness.
As added by Acts 1981, P.L.298, SEC.5. Amended by P.L.321-1983,
SEC.2; P.L.19-1986, SEC.59; P.L.149-1987, SEC.119; P.L.77-2004,
SEC.3.
Last modified: May 24, 2006