Utah § 77-15a-101 Intellectually disabled defendant not subject to death penalty -- Defendant with subaverage functioning not subject to death penalty if confession not corroborated.

Utah Statutes

§ 77-15a-101 — Intellectually disabled defendant not subject to death penalty -- Defendant with subaverage functioning not subject to death penalty if confession not corroborated.

Utah § 77-15a-101

Title 77Utah Code of Criminal Procedure

Ch. 77-15aExemptions From Death Penalty In Capital Cases

This text of Utah § 77-15a-101 (Intellectually disabled defendant not subject to death penalty -- Defendant with subaverage functioning not subject to death penalty if confession not corroborated.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Utah Code Ann. § 77-15a-101 (2026).

Text

(1)A defendant who is found by the court to be intellectually disabled as defined in Section 77-15a-102 is not subject to the death penalty.

(2)A defendant who does not meet the definition of intellectually disabled under Section 77-15a-102 is not subject to the death penalty if:

(2)(a) the defendant has significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning that exists concurrently with significant deficiencies in adaptive functioning;

(2)(b) the functioning described in Subsection (2)(a) is manifested prior to age 22; and

(2)(c) the state intends to introduce into evidence a confession by the defendant which is not supported by substantial evidence independent of the confession.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

(1) A defendant who is found by the court to be intellectually disabled as defined in Section 77-15a-102 is not subject to the death penalty.
(2) A defendant who does not meet the definition of intellectually disabled under Section 77-15a-102 is not subject to the death penalty if:

(2)(a) the defendant has significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning that exists concurrently with significant deficiencies in adaptive functioning;
(2)(b) the functioning described in Subsection (2)(a) is manifested prior to age 22; and
(2)(c) the state intends to introduce into evidence a confession by the defendant which is not supported by substantial evidence independent of the confession.