(1) If the defendant intends to assert the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition, he shall indicate that intention to the court and to the prosecution at the time of arraignment; except that the court, for good cause shown, shall permit the defendant to inform the court and the prosecution of his intention to assert the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition at any time prior to trial.
(2) If counsel for the defendant believes that an assertion of the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition should be entered on behalf of the defendant but the defendant refuses to permit counsel to offer such evidence, counsel may so inform the court. The court shall then conduct such investigation as it deems proper, which may include the appointment of psychiatrists or forensic psychologists to assist in examining the defendant and advising the court. After its investigation, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether evidence of impaired mental condition should be offered at trial. If the court finds that such a defense is necessary for a just determination of the charge against the defendant, it shall inform the prosecution that such defense shall be asserted at trial by the defendant and shall order the defendant's counsel to present evidence at trial on the defense of impaired mental condition.
(3) At the time at which the defendant announces his intention to assert the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition, the court shall advise the defendant of the effect and consequences of asserting the defense.
(4) When the defendant indicates his intention to assert the defense of impaired mental condition, the court shall order an examination of the defendant pursuant to section 16-8-106. The court shall order both the prosecutor and the defendant to exchange the names, addresses, reports, and statements of persons, other than medical experts subject to the provisions of section 16-8-103.6, whom the parties intend to call as witnesses with regard to the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition.
(5) If the trier of fact finds the defendant not guilty by reason of impaired mental condition, pursuant to section 18-1-803 (3), C.R.S., the court shall commit the defendant to the custody of the department of human services until such time as he is found eligible for release, pursuant to the standards set forth in sections 16-8-115 and 16-8-120. The executive director of the department of human services shall designate the state facility at which the defendant shall be held for care and psychiatric treatment and may transfer the defendant from one institution to another if in the opinion of the director it is desirable to do so in the interest of the proper care, custody, and treatment of the defendant or the protection of the public or the personnel of the facilities in question.
(6) It is the intent of the general assembly that the assertion of the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition not be made in such a fashion that it is used to circumvent the requirements of disclosure specified in rule 16 of the Colorado rules of criminal procedure.
(7) A defendant may raise impaired mental condition only through an assertion of affirmative defense.
(8) This section shall apply only to offenses committed before July 1, 1995.
Source: L. 83: Entire section added, p. 673, § 3, effective July 1. L. 85: (6) and (7) added, p. 625, § 1, effective June 6. L. 87: (4) amended, p. 622, § 2, effective July 1. L. 94: (5) amended, p. 2648, § 117, effective July 1. L. 95: (8) added, p. 73, § 5, effective July 1. L. 2013:
(2) amended, (SB 13-116), ch. 115, p. 394, § 3, effective August 7.
Cross references: (1) For affirmative defenses generally, see § 18-1-407.
(2) For the legislative declaration contained in the 1994 act amending subsection (5), see section 1 of chapter 345, Session Laws of Colorado 1994.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases, 1986–2020 · leading case:
People v. Fuller, 791 P.2d 702 (Colo. 1990).
People v. Fuller, 791 P.2d 702 (Colo. 1990).
· cites it 28× “asserting the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition pursuant to section 16-8-103.5... waives any claim of confidentiality or privilege as to communications made by him to a physician or psychologist in the course of an examination or treatment for such mental…”
Gray v. Dist. Court of the Eleventh Jud. Dist., 884 P.2d 286 (Colo. 1994).
· cites it 22× “), states in pertinent part: Waiver of Privilege: A defendant who places his mental condition at issue by pleading not guilty by reason of insanity pursuant to section 16-8-103, asserting the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition pursuant to section 16-8-103.5,...…”
Hendricks v. People, 10 P.3d 1231 (Colo. 2000).
· cites it 9× “1, § 16-8-103.5, 1983 Colo. Sess. Laws 672 , 673; see also People v.”
In Re People v. Rosas, 2020 CO 22 (Colo. 2020).
· cites it 4× “I ¶2 Based on an incident that occurred between January 3 and 4 of 2018, the People charged Paul Damon Rosas with two counts of second degree assault on a peace officer (class 4 felonies), two counts of attempted second degree assault on a peace officer (class 5 felonies), and…”
Cordova v. People, 817 P.2d 66 (Colo. 1991).
· cites it 14× “§ 16-8-103.5(1), 8A C.R.S. (1986). Upon entry of the plea, the court must order a mental examination of the defendant similar to the examination required upon the entry of an insanity plea.”
People v. Low, 732 P.2d 622 (Colo. 1987).
· cites it 5× “In this case, the trial court’s findings and conclusions failed to address the defense of involuntary intoxication which was properly raised and was the primary theory of defense. Evidence of involuntary intoxication was before the trial court but Low’s acquittal was not…”
People v. Wilburn, 272 P.3d 1078 (Colo. 2012).
· cites it 6× “Throughout the proceedings below, the prosecution, defense counsel, and the trial court referred to section 16-8-103.5, CRS. (2011), which defines the affirmative defense of "impaired mental condition" as it existed before 1996.”
King v. People, 785 P.2d 596 (Colo. 1990).
· cites it 3× “The defense of "impaired mental condition" means "a condition of mind, caused by mental disease or defect, which does not constitute insanity but, nevertheless, prevents the person from forming a culpable mental state which is an essential element of a crime charged.”
People v. Requejo, 919 P.2d 874 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 5× “Although the People conceded that the evidence otherwise would be relevant, and the expert testimony admissible under CRE 702, they asserted that unless defendant pled the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition (IMC defense) pursuant to § 16-8-103.5, C.R.S. (1986…”
People v. Vanrees, 125 P.3d 403 (Colo. 2005).
· cites it 2× “(2005); compare § 16-8-103.5, C.R.S. (2005). Thus, while it is technically part of the insanity statute, for the sake of clarity, we will refer to the defense that involves "a condition of mind caused by mental disease or defect” as "impaired mental condition.”
People v. Collins, 752 P.2d 93 (Colo. 1988).
· cites it 8× “1 Collins entered pleas of not guilty, and raised the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition to each substantive count in accordance with the procedures set out in section 16-8-103.5, 8A C.R.S. (1986). Pursuant to section 18-1-803(1), evidence of an impaired mental…”
People v. Quick, 713 P.2d 1282 (Colo. 1986).
· cites it 3× “Mental impairment evidence now may be offered in a proper case "as bearing on the capacity of the accused to form the culpable mental state which is an element of the offense charged.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-103.5(1) — 6 cases
People v. Fuller, 791 P.2d 702 (Colo. 1990).
“asserting the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition pursuant to section 16-8-103.5... waives any claim of confidentiality or privilege as to communications made by him to a physician or psychologist in the course of an examination or treatment for such mental…”
People v. Low, 732 P.2d 622 (Colo. 1987).
“In this case, the trial court’s findings and conclusions failed to address the defense of involuntary intoxication which was properly raised and was the primary theory of defense. Evidence of involuntary intoxication was before the trial court but Low’s acquittal was not…”
King v. People, 785 P.2d 596 (Colo. 1990).
“The defense of "impaired mental condition" means "a condition of mind, caused by mental disease or defect, which does not constitute insanity but, nevertheless, prevents the person from forming a culpable mental state which is an essential element of a crime charged.”
Cordova v. People, 817 P.2d 66 (Colo. 1991).
“§ 16-8-103.5(1), 8A C.R.S. (1986). Upon entry of the plea, the court must order a mental examination of the defendant similar to the examination required upon the entry of an insanity plea.”
People v. Quick, 713 P.2d 1282 (Colo. 1986).
“Mental impairment evidence now may be offered in a proper case "as bearing on the capacity of the accused to form the culpable mental state which is an element of the offense charged.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-103.5(2) — 2 cases
Hendricks v. People, 10 P.3d 1231 (Colo. 2000).
“1, § 16-8-103.5, 1983 Colo. Sess. Laws 672 , 673; see also People v.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-103.5(4) — 7 cases
People v. Fuller, 791 P.2d 702 (Colo. 1990).
“asserting the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition pursuant to section 16-8-103.5... waives any claim of confidentiality or privilege as to communications made by him to a physician or psychologist in the course of an examination or treatment for such mental…”
Gray v. Dist. Court of the Eleventh Jud. Dist., 884 P.2d 286 (Colo. 1994).
“), states in pertinent part: Waiver of Privilege: A defendant who places his mental condition at issue by pleading not guilty by reason of insanity pursuant to section 16-8-103, asserting the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition pursuant to section 16-8-103.5,...…”
Cordova v. People, 817 P.2d 66 (Colo. 1991).
“§ 16-8-103.5(1), 8A C.R.S. (1986). Upon entry of the plea, the court must order a mental examination of the defendant similar to the examination required upon the entry of an insanity plea.”
People v. Collins, 752 P.2d 93 (Colo. 1988).
“1 Collins entered pleas of not guilty, and raised the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition to each substantive count in accordance with the procedures set out in section 16-8-103.5, 8A C.R.S. (1986). Pursuant to section 18-1-803(1), evidence of an impaired mental…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-103.5(5) — 3 cases
Cordova v. People, 817 P.2d 66 (Colo. 1991).
“§ 16-8-103.5(1), 8A C.R.S. (1986). Upon entry of the plea, the court must order a mental examination of the defendant similar to the examination required upon the entry of an insanity plea.”
People v. Collins, 752 P.2d 93 (Colo. 1988).
“1 Collins entered pleas of not guilty, and raised the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition to each substantive count in accordance with the procedures set out in section 16-8-103.5, 8A C.R.S. (1986). Pursuant to section 18-1-803(1), evidence of an impaired mental…”
People v. Quick, 713 P.2d 1282 (Colo. 1986).
“Mental impairment evidence now may be offered in a proper case "as bearing on the capacity of the accused to form the culpable mental state which is an element of the offense charged.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-103.5(8) — 2 cases
In Re People v. Rosas, 2020 CO 22 (Colo. 2020).
“I ¶2 Based on an incident that occurred between January 3 and 4 of 2018, the People charged Paul Damon Rosas with two counts of second degree assault on a peace officer (class 4 felonies), two counts of attempted second degree assault on a peace officer (class 5 felonies), and…”
People v. Wilburn, 272 P.3d 1078 (Colo. 2012).
“Throughout the proceedings below, the prosecution, defense counsel, and the trial court referred to section 16-8-103.5, CRS. (2011), which defines the affirmative defense of "impaired mental condition" as it existed before 1996.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.