Also known as:not guilty plea · not-guilty pleas · plea of not guilty · NG plea
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A formal denial by an accused person in court of having committed the charged offense. The prosecution must then prove all elements of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt if the defendant is to be convicted.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
6
Late Insanity Notice After Plea
Nora Nash pleaded not guilty at arraignment to wire fraud charges. Eleven days later her lawyer filed a written notice of intent to rely on a bipolar disorder defense but offered no explanation for the one-day delay. The court granted the prosecutor's motion to exclude all mental disease evidence because the notice missed the ten-day deadline and lacked good cause.
Court Enters Plea for Absent Defendant
Neptune Energy, a corporate defendant, failed to appear at arraignment on environmental violation charges. The court entered a not guilty plea on the corporation's behalf under the rule requiring that result when a defendant organization does not appear. The case proceeded to trial on the not guilty plea.
Neil Nair appeared without a lawyer at a regional arraignment docket on vehicle identification charges. The judge accepted his not guilty plea and required an immediate decision on waiving a preliminary hearing. Nair later challenged the proceedings, arguing the arraignment was a critical stage requiring counsel.
Powell v. Alabama287 U.S. 45 (1932)
The petitioners, nine young negro men from other states who were ignorant and illiterate, were charged with raping two white girls on a freight train traveling through Alabama on March 25, 1931. The indictment was returned in a state court of first instance on March 31, 1931, and the defendants were arraigned and entered pleas of not guilty the same day.
The defendants were tried in three separate groups beginning April 6, 1931, with each trial completed in a single day. Juries found the defendants guilty and imposed the death penalty on all eight who were convicted. The trial court overruled motions for new trials and sentenced the defendants accordingly, after which the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the judgments, with Chief Justice Anderson dissenting.
A sheriff's posse seized the defendants before the train reached Scottsboro, and they were taken there amid a large hostile crowd. The sheriff called for militia assistance, and soldiers guarded the defendants at every stage from arrest through trial, while the defendants remained closely confined.
No counsel had been employed by the defendants. The trial judge had previously appointed all members of the local bar only for arraignment purposes. The matter of representation was resolved in a brief colloquy that resulted in local lawyers agreeing to help in a limited way.
On the morning the first case was called for trial, a Tennessee lawyer who had not been employed and was unfamiliar with Alabama procedure appeared informally and requested to assist appointed local counsel. The trials proceeded immediately after this arrangement, with no prior opportunity for investigation or preparation by any counsel. After the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, the cases reached the United States Supreme Court.
Naomi Norton entered a not guilty plea to homicide charges after receiving a timely insanity notice. At trial the prosecution presented evidence of planning and consciousness of guilt. The jury convicted her after finding the mental disease evidence insufficient to establish the affirmative defense.
North Carolina v. Alford400 U.S. 25 (1970)
On December 2, 1963, Henry C. Alford was indicted in North Carolina for first-degree murder. The court appointed counsel who interviewed witnesses identified by Alford, but those witnesses provided statements indicating Alford's guilt rather than supporting his claim of innocence. The prosecutor agreed to accept a plea of guilty to a charge of second-degree murder, and on December 10, 1963, Alford pleaded guilty to the reduced charge.
Before the plea was finally accepted by the trial court, the court heard the sworn testimony of a police officer who summarized the State's case. Although there was no eyewitness to the crime, the testimony indicated that shortly before the killing Alford took his gun from his house, stated his intention to kill the victim, and returned home with the declaration that he had carried out the killing. After the summary presentation of the State's case, Alford took the stand. He testified that he had not committed the murder but that he was pleading guilty because he faced the threat of the death penalty if he did not do so. In response to the questions of his counsel, he acknowledged that his counsel had informed him of the difference between second- and first-degree murder and of his rights in case he chose to go to trial. After eliciting information about Alford's prior criminal record, which was a long one, the trial court sentenced him to 30 years' imprisonment, the maximum penalty for second-degree murder.
Alford sought post-conviction relief in the state court. Among the claims raised was the claim that his plea of guilty was invalid because it was the product of fear and coercion. After a hearing, the state court in 1965 found that the plea was "willingly, knowingly, and understandingly" made on the advice of competent counsel and in the face of a strong prosecution case. Subsequently, Alford petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, first in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, and then in the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Both courts denied the writ on the basis of the state court's findings that Alford voluntarily and knowingly agreed to plead guilty. On appeal, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed on the ground that Alford's guilty plea was made involuntarily.
The Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in 1969.
Nicholas Nunez received a full indictment two weeks before arraignment on multiple odometer tampering counts. The prosecutor described only one representative count in detail at the hearing. After entering a not guilty plea, Nunez moved to withdraw it, claiming the arraignment failed to state the substance of each charge.
Santobello v. New York404 U.S. 257 (1971)
The State of New York indicted Santobello in 1969 on two felony counts of Promoting Gambling in the First Degree and Possession of Gambling Records in the First Degree. Santobello initially entered a plea of not guilty to both counts. After negotiations, the Assistant District Attorney agreed to permit a plea to the lesser-included offense of Possession of Gambling Records in the Second Degree and promised to make no recommendation as to sentence.
On June 16, 1969, Santobello withdrew the not guilty plea and entered a guilty plea to the lesser charge. The court accepted the plea after Santobello confirmed it was voluntary and the facts described by the prosecutor were true. A series of delays followed, owing primarily to the absence of a pre-sentence report, so that by September 23, 1969, Santobello had still not been sentenced.
By that date petitioner acquired new defense counsel. Petitioner's new counsel moved immediately to withdraw the guilty plea. In an accompanying affidavit, petitioner alleged that he did not know at the time of his plea that crucial evidence against him had been obtained as a result of an illegal search. In addition to his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, petitioner renewed the motion to suppress and filed a motion to inspect the grand jury minutes. These motions in turn caused further delay until November 26, 1969, when the court denied all three and set January 9, 1970, as the date for sentencing.
On January 9, 1970, Santobello appeared before a different judge because the original judge had retired. A new prosecutor replaced the one who negotiated the plea and recommended the maximum one-year sentence, citing Santobello’s criminal record and alleged links with organized crime. Defense counsel objected on the ground that the State had promised no sentence recommendation and sought an adjournment to prove the promise, though the State later conceded in subsequent proceedings that the promise had been made.
The sentencing judge imposed the maximum one-year sentence at the New York City Correctional Institution for men, stating that the prosecutor’s recommendation did not influence the decision. Santobello obtained a certificate of reasonable doubt and was admitted to bail pending appeal. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the conviction, and leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals was denied. Santobello then sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court granted.
Noah Nakamura pleaded not guilty to sabotage charges and proceeded to trial. After conviction he argued on appeal that no rational trier of fact could have found the elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The reviewing court examined the record to determine whether the evidence supported the verdict.
Jackson v. Virginia443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 2789, 61 L.Ed.2d 560, 573 (1979)
On July 29, 1972, the body of Mary Houston Cole was discovered in a secluded church parking lot in Chesterfield County, Virginia. She had been shot twice at close range with a .38-caliber pistol. The victim had last been seen alive the previous evening in the company of petitioner Hugh Jackson, who was carrying a .38-caliber pistol.
Jackson had befriended Cole while he was imprisoned on a disorderly conduct charge at the local county jail. After his release she arranged for him to live in the home of her son and daughter-in-law. On the day of the killing Jackson had been drinking and had spent considerable time shooting at targets with his revolver. Late in the afternoon he unsuccessfully attempted to persuade Cole to drive him to North Carolina. She instead drove him to a local diner where both were observed by several police officers.
A deputy sheriff later observed Jackson and Cole preparing to leave the diner in her car. Jackson was in possession of his revolver and a kitchen knife was visible in the vehicle. Cole's body was found the following day and a half later, naked from the waist down with her slacks beneath her body. Six cartridge cases fired from Jackson's gun were recovered nearby. Jackson drove the victim's car to North Carolina, made a short trip to Florida, and was arrested several days later.
In a post-arrest statement introduced at trial, Jackson admitted shooting Cole but claimed the shooting occurred accidentally during a struggle. He said the victim had attacked him with a knife when he resisted her sexual advances. He stated he had first fired warning shots into the ground and reloaded before the fatal shots. At trial he asserted self-defense or, alternatively, that intoxication had prevented him from forming the specific intent required for first-degree murder under Virginia law.
The trial judge, sitting as factfinder, convicted Jackson of first-degree murder and sentenced him to thirty years in prison. Jackson's motion to set aside the judgment was denied. The Virginia Supreme Court denied his petition for a writ of error alleging insufficient evidence.
Jackson then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The District Court applied the Thompson v. Louisville no-evidence standard and granted relief after finding insufficient proof of premeditation. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed that judgment.
What happens if a defendant files an insanity notice after the deadline following a not guilty plea?
The court may exclude the mental disease evidence unless the defendant shows good cause for the late filing. The rule conditions admissibility on timely written notice or a court-approved extension.
Does a not guilty plea at arraignment trigger the right to counsel?
Yes. Arraignment is a critical stage once formal adversarial proceedings have begun, especially when the court accepts a plea or requires decisions such as waiving a preliminary hearing.
Must the prosecution disprove an insanity defense raised after a not guilty plea?
No. Mental disease or defect excluding responsibility is an affirmative defense. The defendant must raise it with proper notice and typically bears the burden of persuasion.
287 U.S. 45 (1932)
…As each of the three cases was called for trial, each defendant was arraigned, and, having the indictment read to him, entered a plea of not guilty. Whether the original arraignment and pleas were regarded as ineffective is not shown. Each of the three trials was completed within a single day. Under the Alabama statute the punishment…