A. In any case in which the state files a notice of intent to seek the death penalty, a person who is found to have an intellectual disability pursuant to this section shall not be sentenced to death but shall be sentenced to life or natural life.

Ask a criminal law question, get an answer ASAP!
Click here to chat with a criminal defense lawyer and protect your rights.

B. If the state files a notice of intent to seek the death penalty, the court, unless the defendant objects, shall appoint a prescreening psychological expert in order to determine the defendant’s intelligence quotient using current community, nationally and culturally accepted intelligence testing procedures. The prescreening psychological expert shall submit a written report of the intelligence quotient determination to the court within ten days of the testing of the defendant. If the defendant objects to the prescreening, the defendant waives the right to a pretrial determination of status. The waiver does not preclude the defendant from offering evidence of the defendant’s intellectual disability in the penalty phase.

C. If the prescreening psychological expert determines that the defendant’s intelligence quotient is higher than seventy-five, the notice of intent to seek the death penalty shall not be dismissed on the ground that the defendant has an intellectual disability. If the prescreening psychological expert determines that the defendant’s intelligence quotient is higher than seventy-five, the report shall be sealed by the court and be available only to the defendant. The report shall be released on the motion of any party if the defendant introduces the report in the present case or is convicted of an offense in the present case and the sentence is final. A prescreening determination that the defendant’s intelligence quotient is higher than seventy-five does not prevent the defendant from introducing evidence of the defendant’s intellectual disability or diminished mental capacity at the penalty phase of the sentencing proceeding.

D. If the prescreening psychological expert determines that the defendant’s intelligence quotient is seventy-five or less, the trial court, within ten days of receiving the written report, shall order the state and the defendant to each nominate three experts in intellectual disabilities, or jointly nominate a single expert in intellectual disabilities. The trial court shall appoint one expert in intellectual disabilities nominated by the state and one expert in intellectual disabilities nominated by the defendant, or a single expert in intellectual disabilities jointly nominated by the state and the defendant, none of whom made the prescreening determination of the defendant’s intelligence quotient. The trial court, in its discretion, may appoint an additional expert in intellectual disabilities who was neither nominated by the state nor the defendant, and who did not make the prescreening determination of the defendant’s intelligence quotient. Within forty-five days after the trial court orders the state and the defendant to nominate experts in intellectual disabilities, or on the appointment of such experts, whichever is later, the state and the defendant shall provide to the experts in intellectual disabilities and the court any available records that may be relevant to the defendant’s status. The court may extend the deadline for providing records on good cause shown by the state or defendant.

E. Not less than twenty days after receipt of the records provided pursuant to subsection D, or twenty days after the expiration of the deadline for providing the records, whichever is later, each expert in intellectual disability shall examine the defendant using current community, nationally and culturally accepted physical, developmental, psychological and intelligence testing procedures, for the purpose of determining whether the defendant has an intellectual disability. Within fifteen days of examining the defendant, each expert in intellectual disabilities shall submit a written report to the trial court that includes the expert’s opinion as to whether the defendant has an intellectual disability.

F. If the scores on all the tests for intelligence quotient administered to the defendant are above seventy, the notice of intent to seek the death penalty shall not be dismissed on the ground that the defendant has an intellectual disability. This does not preclude the defendant from introducing evidence of the defendant’s intellectual disability or diminished mental capacity at the penalty phase of the sentencing proceeding.

G. No less than thirty days after the experts in intellectual disabilities submit reports to the court and before trial, the trial court shall hold a hearing to determine if the defendant has an intellectual disability. At the hearing, the defendant has the burden of proving intellectual disability by clear and convincing evidence. A determination by the trial court that the defendant’s intelligence quotient is sixty-five or lower establishes a rebuttable presumption that the defendant has an intellectual disability. This subsection does not preclude a defendant with an intelligence quotient of seventy or below from proving intellectual disability by clear and convincing evidence.

H. If the trial court finds that the defendant has an intellectual disability, the trial court shall dismiss the intent to seek the death penalty, shall not impose a sentence of death on the defendant if the defendant is convicted of first degree murder and shall dismiss one of the attorneys appointed under rule 6.2, Arizona rules of criminal procedure, unless the court finds that there is good cause to retain both attorneys. If the trial court finds that the defendant does not have an intellectual disability, the court’s finding does not prevent the defendant from introducing evidence of the defendant’s intellectual disability or diminished mental capacity at the penalty phase of the sentencing proceeding.

I. Within ten days after the trial court makes a finding on intellectual disability, the state or the defendant may file a petition for special action with the Arizona court of appeals pursuant to the rules of procedure for special actions. The filing of the petition for special action is governed by the rules of procedure for special actions, except that the court of appeals shall exercise jurisdiction and decide the merits of the claims raised.

J. This section applies to all capital sentencing proceedings.

K. For the purposes of this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Adaptive behavior" means the effectiveness or degree to which the defendant meets the standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected of the defendant’s age and cultural group.

2. "Expert in intellectual disabilities" means a psychologist or physician licensed pursuant to Title 32, Chapter 13, 17 or 19.1 with at least five years’ experience in the testing or testing assessment, evaluation and diagnosis of intellectual disabilities.

3. "Intellectual disability" means a condition based on a mental deficit that involves significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with significant impairment in adaptive behavior, where the onset of the foregoing conditions occurred before the defendant reached the age of eighteen.

4. "Prescreening psychological expert" means a psychologist licensed pursuant to Title 32, Chapter 19.1 with at least five years’ experience in the testing, evaluation and diagnosis of intellectual disabilities.

5. "Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning" means a full scale intelligence quotient of seventy or lower. The court in determining the intelligence quotient shall take into account the margin of error for the test administered.