AK · jury_instructions
Alaska Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 1.44A
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF INSANITY
If you conclude that the state has proved all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must decide whether the defendant is "not guilty by reason of insanity."
For you to find that the defendant is "not guilty by reason of insanity," you must find that the defendant has proved that the following statements are more likely true than not true:
(1) when the defendant engaged in the criminal conduct, the defendant was suffering from a mental disease or defect, and
(2) as a result of this mental disease or defect, the defendant was unable to understand the nature and quality of that conduct.
If you find that statements (1) and (2) are both more likely true than not true, then you must return a verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" for this offense.
If you do not find that statements (1) and (2) are both more likely true than not true, then you must next decide whether the defendant is "guilty but mentally ill" or is simply "guilty."
History
Alaska Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions 1.44A, dated Revised 2016. Prepared by the Alaska Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions Committee; published by the Alaska Court System. The Alaska Court System states that these instructions "have not been approved or promulgated by any court or the Alaska Bar Association." Printed in the committee's instruction packet 1.44 (Affirmative Defense of Insanity).
Provenance
- Source
- courts.alaska.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
bf5d41cb7d9e7fae17d7ffd50acac56de7aa6218d47b7f99cd68a56a02b59318
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.