Death penalty: intellectually disabled persons.

Existing case law holds that execution of a "mentally retarded" person constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the United States Constitution, rendering an individual with mental retardation ineligible for the death penalty. Existing law authorizes a defendant to apply, prior to the commencement of trial, for an order directing that a hearing to determine intellectual disability be conducted when the prosecution in a criminal case seeks the death penalty. Existing law defines "intellectual disability" for these purposes as the condition of significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested before the end of the developmental period, as defined by clinical standards. Existing law requires the court to order a hearing to determine whether the defendant has an intellectual disability upon the submission of a declaration by a qualified expert stating the expert's opinion that the defendant is a person with an intellectual disability. Existing law requires a court to impanel a new jury to try the issue of intellectual disability if a jury panel was unable to reach a unanimous verdict that the defendant is a person with an intellectual disability. This bill would define "manifested before the end of the developmental period" to mean that the deficits were present during the development period, and does not require a formal diagnosis, or tests of intellectual functioning in the intellectual disability range, before the end of the developmental period. The bill would codify case law by specifying that individuals with an intellectual disability are ineligible for the death penalty. The bill would specify that the question of intellectual disability is a question of fact that may be stipulated to by the parties, and would require the court to accept the stipulation, unless the court finds that the stipulation is not supported by documentary evidence that provides a factual basis for concluding by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has an intellectual disability. The bill would require the court to state its factual and legal rationale for declining to accept a stipulation of the parties. This bill would authorize the court to order a defendant or petitioner to submit to testing by a qualified prosecution expert only if the prosecution presents a reasonable factual basis that the intellectual functioning testing presented by the defendant or petitioner is unreliable. If the court enters an order for the defendant or petitioner to submit to testing, the bill would require the prosecution to submit a proposed list of the tests its expert wishes to administer so that the defendant or petitioner may raise any objections before testing is ordered. The bill would require the court, in the event that a jury in unable to reach a unanimous verdict as to whether the defendant is a person with an intellectual disability, to enter a finding that the defendant is ineligible for the death penalty.