WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1107

CRIMINAL/PROCEDURE: Provides relative to determination of intellectual disability in capital cases

2026 Regular Session Introduced by Michael Melerine

Louisiana HB 1107 tightens the intellectual disability standard in capital cases, requiring multi-criterion proof (IQ ≤70, adaptive deficits, onset before 18) and stricter post-con

Read by title and returned to the Calendar, subject to call.
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1107

HB 1107 (Louisiana, 2026) – Summary of the bill on intellectual disability in capital cases

Overview
- Purpose: To legislate how intellectual disability is determined in capital punishment cases, clarifying criteria, evidentiary standards, and procedural pathways. The bill also declares an intended legislative override of certain existing Louisiana Supreme Court jurisprudence and addresses retroactivity and future challenges to the statute’s constitutionality.
- Sponsor: Rep. Melerine (co-sponsor: Michael Melerine)
- Committee action: Referred to the Administration of Criminal Justice; as of the provided text, no final enactment status is shown.

Key provisions and changes
- Intellectual disability standard in capital cases (Article 905.5.1)
- Definitional criteria (new and retained terms):
- Adaptive behavior: Defines the level of independence and social responsibility, highlighting daily living activities across environments.
- Intellectually disabled: Onset before age 18, mental deficit with significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, and concurrent significant impairment in adaptive behavior.
- Significantly subaverage intellectual functioning: IQ of 70 or below.
- Burden of proof: The defendant must prove all of the following by a preponderance of the evidence to claim intellectual disability (current law is preponderance; the bill changes to a higher, multi-criterion standard):
- Significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, with consideration of the margin of error in IQ testing.
- Significant and substantial deficits in adaptive behavior.
- Both conditions manifested before age 18.
- Both conditions exist concurrently.
- Trial procedure for determination:
- The jury ordinarily resolves the intellectual disability issue at the capital sentencing phase, unless the state and defendant agree that it should be decided by the judge (before trial if agreed).
- A pretrial judicial determination does not preclude raising the issue again at the penalty phase or instructing the jury as allowed by law.
- Inoperativeness with Atkins framework:
- The article states it becomes inoperative immediately if the U.S. Supreme Court overrules Atkins v. Virginia, restoring death eligibility for defendants with intellectual disability.

  • Post-conviction relief and definitions (Articles 924 and 926.5)

    • Reinforces and defines key terms for post-conviction relief:
    • Adaptive behavior, intellectually disabled, and significantly subaverage intellectual functioning.
    • Legislative override of prior Louisiana jurisprudence:
    • Explicitly overrules State v. Williams (2002) and State v. Dunn (2008) to the extent those decisions conflict with the new framework.
    • Burden of proof in post-conviction relief:
    • Petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence:
      • Significantly subaverage intellectual functioning.
      • Significant and substantial deficits in adaptive behavior.
      • Manifestation before age 18.
      • Concurrency of both conditions.
    • Post-conviction evidentiary standards:
    • Requires a written expert IQ report within ten days of testing for post-conviction relief.
    • Courts must consider margin of error, the cumulative effect of multiple scores, and may presume higher scores more accurately reflect capacity.
    • A score above 75 on any scientifically recognized IQ test administered by a licensed professional creates a rebuttable presumption against intellectual disability.
    • Any evidentiary hearing must follow Article 930 procedures.

  • Scope, retroactivity, and venue

    • Retroactive and prospective application: Applies to all post-conviction relief sought based on intellectual disability, with both retroactive and prospective reach.
    • Venue for constitutional challenges: Civil actions challenging the constitutionality of the law must be filed in the Twenty-First Judicial District Court.
    • Legislative overrule mechanism: The text explicitly asserts legislative intent to supersede Williams and Dunn when they conflict with the new Article.
    • State Law Institute role: Authorized to renumber and place Article 926(7)-(9) appropriately.

Who is affected
- Defendants in capital cases asserting intellectual disability.
- Courts handling capital sentencing and post-conviction relief related to intellectual disability claims.
- Potential defendants seeking relief under post-conviction standards.
- The Louisiana judiciary and litigants challenging the constitutionality of the new framework.

Timeline and procedural notes
- The bill outlines procedural pathways for initial (trial) and post-conviction determinations.
- It provides for immediate inoperability of prior provisions upon a U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Atkins (per the text).
- It requires specific expert reporting timelines and evidentiary processes.
- It directs the State Law Institute to adjust numbering to integrate the new provisions.

Impact and implications
- The bill tightens the criteria for intellectual disability, raising the evidentiary burden and tying decisions to explicit, multiple criteria.
- It attempts to limit reliance on earlier Louisiana cases that previously shaped post-conviction disability determinations (Williams and Dunn) and aligns with a state-law framework compatible with Atkins-era standard discussions.
- It preserves the death-penalty prohibition for individuals deemed intellectually disabled under the new multi-criterion standard, while allowing for death eligibility if Atkins is overruled at the federal level.
- It introduces clear procedural safeguards and expert-report requirements for post-conviction relief.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.