SB48 Alabama 2017 Session

Summary

Primary Sponsor

Hank Sanders

Democrat

Session

Regular Session 2017

Title

Capital punishment, intellectual disability defendant, procedures for court to determine, established, Sec. 13A-5-60 added

Summary

SB48 would add a pretrial process to determine if a capital murder defendant has an intellectual disability, and if so, bar the death penalty.

What This Bill Does

It defines intellectual disability and sets a clear, two-part test that must be proven before age 18. The defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that they have both significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning and significant limitations in adaptive functioning. If the court finds intellectual disability, the state cannot seek the death penalty. The bill establishes a pretrial hearing with potential court-appointed experts for indigent defendants, allows the state to present its own evidence and experts, and requires the court to issue findings. It also states that the pretrial ruling does not prevent other legal defenses or mitigating evidence and is not retroactive for those already sentenced to death.

Who It Affects

• Defendants charged with capital murder who may be found to have an intellectual disability and therefore not subject to the death penalty, subject to meeting the criteria and burden of proof.
• The State/prosecution and the trial court in capital cases, who gain new procedures for pretrial hearings, expert examinations, evidence presentation, and required court findings; and who are impacted by the non-retroactivity and the potential limits on appealing the pretrial ruling.

Key Provisions

• Defines an intellectual disability as: (1) significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning manifested by age 18, and (2) significant limitations in adaptive functioning manifested by age 18 in at least two adaptive skills areas.
• Requires the defendant to prove by clear and convincing evidence both elements and manifestation before age 18; IQ tests provide inferences but are not determinative.
• The trial court must determine if the defendant is intellectually disabled and must issue findings; a pretrial hearing can be requested by the defendant, with possible court-appointed experts if indigent.
• The state may have its own expert examination and present evidence at the hearing; if the defendant cooperates poorly, the court may limit the defendant’s expert evidence.
• If the court finds intellectual disability, the state cannot seek the death penalty; pretrial determination does not prevent other defenses or mitigating evidence, and the ruling is not subject to interlocutory appeal.
• Not retroactive to those already convicted and sentenced to death; act is severable; effective date is the first day of the third month after passage.

AI-generated summary using openai/gpt-5-nano on Feb 24, 2026. May contain errors — refer to the official bill text for accuracy.

Subjects

Crimes and Offenses