intellectually disabled prior to age 18 - Sentencing proceedings.
A.For purposes of this section: 1. "Intellectual disability" or "intellectually disabled" means significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with significant limitations in adaptive functioning; 2. "Significant limitations in adaptive functioning" means significant limitations in two or more of the following adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health, safety, functional academics, leisure skills and work skills; and 3. "Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning" means an intelligence quotient of seventy (70) or below.
B.Regardless of any provision of law to the contrary, no defendant who is intellectua
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
intellectually disabled prior to age 18 - Sentencing proceedings. A. For purposes of this section: 1. "Intellectual disability" or "intellectually disabled" means significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with significant limitations in adaptive functioning; 2. "Significant limitations in adaptive functioning" means significant limitations in two or more of the following adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills, community use, self-direction, health, safety, functional academics, leisure skills and work skills; and 3. "Significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning" means an intelligence quotient of seventy (70) or below. B. Regardless of any provision of law to the contrary, no defendant who is intellectually disabled shall be sentenced to death; provided, however, the onset of the intellectual disability must have been manifested before the defendant attained the age of eighteen (18) years. C. The defendant has the burden of production and persuasion to demonstrate intellectual disability by showing significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, significant limitations in adaptive functioning, and that the onset of the intellectual disability was manifested before the age of eighteen (18) years. An intelligence quotient of seventy (70) or below on an individually administered, scientifically recognized standardized intelligence quotient test administered by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist is evidence of significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning; however, it is not sufficient without evidence of significant limitations in adaptive functioning and without evidence of manifestation before the age of eighteen (18) years. In determining the intelligence quotient, the standard measurement of error for the test administrated shall be taken into account. However, in no event shall a defendant who has received an intelligence quotient of seventy-six (76) or above on any individually administered, scientifically recognized, standardized intelligence quotient test administered by a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist, be considered intellectually disabled and, thus, shall not be subject to any proceedings under this section. D. A defendant charged with capital murder who intends to raise an intellectual disability as a bar to the death sentence shall provide to the state notice of such intention at least ninety (90) days after formal arraignment or within ninety (90) days after the filing of a bill of particulars, whichever is later. The notice shall include a brief but detailed statement specifying the witnesses, nature and type of evidence sought to be introduced. The notice must demonstrate sufficient facts that demonstrate a good- faith belief as to the intellectual disability of the defendant. E. The district court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the defendant is intellectually disabled. If the court determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant is intellectually disabled, the defendant, if convicted, shall be sentenced to life imprisonment or life without parole. If the district court determines that the defendant is not intellectually disabled, the capital trial of the offense may proceed. A request for a hearing under this section shall not waive entitlement by the defendant to submit the issue of an intellectual disability to a jury during the sentencing phase in a capital trial if convicted of an offense punishable by death. The court's determination on the issue of an intellectual disability shall not be the subject of an interlocutory appeal. F. The court shall submit a special issue to the jury as to whether the defendant is intellectually disabled. This special issue shall be considered and answered by the jury during the sentencing stage and prior to the determination of sentence. If the jury unanimously determines that the defendant is intellectually disabled, the defendant may only be sentenced to life imprisonment or life without parole. The defendant has the burden of production and persuasion to demonstrate an intellectual disability to the jury by a preponderance of the evidence. G. If the jury determines that the defendant is not intellectually disabled or is unable to reach a unanimous decision, the jury shall proceed to determine the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors in determining whether the sentence of death shall be imposed. In those deliberations, the jury may consider any evidence of an intellectual disability as a mitigating factor in sentencing the defendant. H. If the jury determines that the defendant is not intellectually disabled and imposes a death sentence, the trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to the issue of whether the determination on the issue of an intellectual disability was made under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other arbitrary factor. The findings shall be attached as an exhibit to the report of the trial judge required under Section 701.13 of Title 21 of the Oklahoma Statutes. If the trial court finds that the determination of an intellectual disability was not supported by the evidence, the issue may be raised on appeal to the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals for consideration as part of its mandatory sentence review. I. The standard of review for a trier of fact intellectual disability determination shall be whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the state, any rational trier of fact could have found the defendant not intellectually disabled as defined by this section, giving full deference to the findings of the trier of fact. J. The court shall give appropriate instructions in those cases in which evidence of the intellectual disability of the defendant requires the consideration by the jury of the provisions of this section.