Kentucky lawmakers filed a bill this session that would eliminate the insanity defense in the state. "Logan's Law" is named for a 6-year-old boy who was murdered in his home in 2015. Ronald Exantus, who admitted to killing Logan Tipton, was found not guilty by reason of insanity by a jury. He was found "guilty but mentally ill" of assaulting other members of the Tipton family.
The tragic case got statewide and national attention when Exantus was released after serving less than half of his 20-year sentence.
Republican lawmakers supporting House Bill 422 say they want to see accountability. Some defense attorneys and other legal professionals are concerned that removing that legal avenue does not provide full due process.
LPM's Bill Burton spoke with B. Scott West, legislative agent for the Kentucky Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, about the bill.
This transcript was edited for clarity and brevity.
Bill Burton: The insanity defense is allowed in 46 states as well as in federal courts. Why did it begin in the first place?
B. Scott West: The insanity defense dates back to old England, and the version that we know today is called the M'Naughton rule, which basically is a two part test. It's called the moral incapacity test and a volitional incapacity test. Basically, the person didn't know right from wrong, or because of mental illness, he was unable to conform his actions to the requirements of law, and that has become codified in a lot of states.
I will say this – all 50 states do have it. I know there are states that supposedly don't have it, but the reason that they do have it is because they have a cognitive incapacity test, and that is because of mental illness. They're unable to form the intention requirement, and that's why they pass due process. But all 50 states have some form of an insanity test.
BB: Why is Kentucky a state that wants to change what it currently has?
BSW: I think that there is a particular case out there, one involving a man named Ronald Exantus. That jury found that he had a severe mental illness, and as a result, what would have otherwise been a murder was found to be not guilty by reason of insanity. I think that there is an outcry on that case, but it's an outlier case.
There are very few not guilty by reason of insanity. To get that verdict, a person has to have pretty severe mental illness, and a jury of 12 has to believe that this person's actions were motivated out of that mental illness.
BB: There are those, as you just described, that use the insanity defense who genuinely need treatment. How would this potential law affect them?
BSW: What would happen is, if this bill is passed as written, it would write out all of the insanity provisions that currently exist in the law, but because the courts believe that due process requires there to be some sort of insanity test that would free the courts up to fashion their own. In fact, many of the 50 states, Virginia, Mississippi, Nevada and Nebraska, don't have a legislative statute that has the insanity test. They have a court decision that imposes an insanity test. So if this were actually eliminated from the law books, the courts would be free and would come up with their own test for insanity. In fact, the criminal rules have rules that provide for an insanity defense. What would happen is you'd have a case decision that would decide what is Kentucky's test going forward to prove that mental illness is exculpatory, or basically the cause of the criminal offense.
BB: From what you have learned from HB 422, at this point, is this going to be put into law? Will it have enough votes?
BSW: That remains to be seen. I know that they're working on other parts of the bill and I hope to testify on the bill to explain that there has to be some form of mental illness played in exculpation as a defense to criminal conduct. Courts will impose one if the legislature takes it away, because due process requires it.
Copyright 2026 LPM News