Bills › 91st General Assembly
Relating to the Iowa rules of criminal procedure including commitment hearings following an acquittal based on insanity
Sponsored by the House Judiciary Committee
Where it is now
- Done: IntroducedJanuary 15, 2026
- Done: SubcommitteeJanuary 28, 2026
- Done: House committeeFebruary 12, 2026
- Done: Passes the HouseMarch 24, 202696–0
- Skipped: Senate committeeSkipped
- Done: Passes the SenateMarch 30, 202645–0
- Done: To the GovernorApril 9, 2026
- Done: Signed into lawApril 9, 2026
Signed into law What’s a funnel?
What’s in it
AI summary When a person is found not guilty because of insanity, a court must use a specific list of factors to decide if they should stay in a mental health facility. Judges will look at things like the person's past behavior, mental health history, and expert reports to see if they are still dangerous. The law says a judge cannot decide someone is safe just because they haven't acted dangerous recently.1
Read the official explanation
This bill relates to the Iowa rules of criminal procedure including commitment hearings following an acquittal based on insanity. The bill provides a list of factors a court must consider in determining whether a defendant continues to be mentally ill and dangerous to the defendant’s self or others. The bill states that the absence of recent overt acts of dangerousness shall not, by itself, be the sole determining factor in assessing whether the defendant poses a risk to the defendant’s self or others. The factors include the original offense, behavioral history, psychiatric history and current mental status, substance use disorder history, institutional behavior and independent functioning, environmental influences, and expert testimony and risk assessment reports. The revised rules of criminal procedure shall be submitted for legislative council review no later than October 14, 2026.
Why it matters. Courts would follow new requirements when deciding if a person acquitted by reason of insanity should remain committed due to mental illness and dangerousness. Judges would evaluate specific factors, such as psychiatric history, substance use, and expert testimony, rather than relying solely on whether the person has recently committed dangerous acts.2
Changed since by amendments S-5138, H-8252; see Amendments.
House subcommittee
Named January 28, 2026 (as HSB 632). On February 5, 2026 it recommended passage.
Three legislators hear a bill first and recommend what the committee should do; it’s the best time to weigh in. How to take part
Lobbying
4 for · 0 against · 13 undecided · Who →
Family tree
Study bill
91st General Assembly