---
title: O.C.G.A. § 16-3-2. Mental capacity; insanity.
collection: code
id: 16-3-2
cite_as: O.C.G.A. § 16-3-2 (2025)
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/16-3-2
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/16-3-2.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/16-3-2/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/t16-ch1-6-(v14)-2019-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=af47a366_0#page=235
date: 2025
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/code/16-3.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/code/16-3-1.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/code/16-3-3.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
current_through: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly
heading_path: CRIMES AND OFFENSES / DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS / RESPONSIBILITY
---

# O.C.G.A. § 16-3-2. Mental capacity; insanity.

A person shall not be found guilty of a crime if, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the person did not have mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to such act, omission, or negligence.

## History

Code 1933, § 26-702, enacted by Ga. L. 1968, p. 1249, § 1.

## Cross References

Mental capacity to stand trial; release of competency evaluation to prosecuting attorney, § 17-7-129. Mental capacity as it relates to competency to stand trial and as it relates to culpability for criminal acts, § 17-7-130. Proceedings upon plea of insanity or mental incompetency, § 17-7-131.

## Law Reviews

For article, ‘‘The Georgia Law of Insanity,’’ see 3 Ga. B.J. 28 (1941). For article discussing the theory of insanity in criminal law, see 15 Mercer L. Rev. 399 (1964). For annual survey on criminal law, see 65 Mercer L. Rev. 79 (2013). For article, ‘‘Annual Survey of Georgia Law: June 1, 2015 — May 31, 2016: Special Contribution: Georgia’s Safe Harbor Ruling for Affirmative Defenses in Criminal Cases Should Be Revisited,’’ see 68 Mercer L. Rev. 35 (2016). For article, ‘‘An Empirical Assessment of Georgia’s Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard to Determine Intellectual Disability in Capital Cases,’’ see 33 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 553 (2017).

For note discussing criminal responsibility and mental illness as a defense in Georgia, see 23 Ga. B. J. 538 (1961). For note comparing the M’Naghten Rule and the irresistible impulse test for legal tests of insanity, see 14 Mercer L. Rev. 418 (1963).

For comment on Nelson v. State, 151 N.W.2d 694 (Wis. 1967), as to constitutionality of appointment of general practitioner as an expert witness on issue of defendant’s sanity, see 19 Mercer L. Rev. 263 (1968). For comment, ‘‘Saving the Deific Decree Exception to the Insanity Defense in Illinois: How a Broad Interpretation of ‘Religious Command’ May Cure Establishment Clause Concerns,’’ see 46 J. Marshall L. Rev. 56 (2013).