(1) When a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is accepted, the court shall forthwith commit the defendant for a sanity examination, specifying the place and period of commitment.
(2) Upon receiving the report of the sanity examination, the court shall immediately set the case for trial. Every person is presumed to be sane; but, once any evidence of insanity is introduced, the people have the burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.
(3) When the affirmative defense of not guilty by reason of insanity has been raised, the jury shall be given special verdict forms containing interrogatories. The trier of fact shall decide first the question of guilt as to felony charges that are before the court. If the trier of fact concludes that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt as to one or more of the felony charges submitted for consideration, the special interrogatories shall not be answered. Upon completion of its deliberations on the felony charges as previously set forth in this subsection (3), the trier of fact shall consider any other charges before the court in a similar manner; except that it shall not answer the special interrogatories regarding such charges if it has previously found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to one or more felony charges. The interrogatories shall provide for specific findings of the jury with respect to the affirmative defense of not guilty by reason of insanity. When the court sits as the trier of fact, it shall enter appropriate specific findings with respect to the affirmative defense of not guilty by reason of insanity.
(4) (a) (I) If the trier of fact finds the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity, at the request of the defendant, the court may continue the bond pursuant to section 16-4-108 to allow the defendant to remain at liberty or set a hearing to modify the bond pursuant to section 16-4- 109 and delay final disposition, delay formal entry of the finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, and stay the commitment of the defendant to the custody of the department of human services pursuant to subsection (4)(b) of this section until the conclusion of the initial release hearing required pursuant to section 16-8-115 (1)(a). If the defendant is on bond, the court shall order the department of human services to conduct a release examination on an outpatient basis, as well as any other appropriate conditions of release, including participation in outpatient treatment.
(II) In determining whether to continue or modify the bond, the court shall consider the criteria described in section 16-4-103, as well as that the defendant was found not guilty by reason of insanity rather than convicted, the defendant's treatment needs, the availability of treatment in the community, the ability of the department of human services to conduct a release evaluation in the community, whether the department of human services can timely admit the defendant, and the usefulness of an observation period as part of the release evaluation.
(III) (A) The court shall not delay the final disposition and entry of finding of not guilty by reason of insanity unless the defendant is at liberty and requests a delay, in which case the court may delay the final disposition to allow the defendant to post bond for an outpatient release examination.
(B) If the defendant is on bond, the district attorney or a bonding commissioner may file with the court a verified motion to revoke the defendant's bond pursuant to section 16-4-109; except that, if the court finds the defendant violated a bond condition, the court may revoke the bond and enter the final disposition of not guilty by reason of insanity and order the defendant committed to the department of human services.
(IV) This subsection (4)(a) does not apply if the court finds that the crime for which the defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity:
(A) Is a class 1 or class 2 felony;
(B) Resulted in another person suffering serious bodily injury or death;
(C) Involved the defendant using a deadly weapon; or
(D) Involved felony unlawful sexual behavior pursuant to section 16-22-102 (9).
(b) If the trier of fact finds the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity, unless delayed pursuant to subsection (4)(a) of this section, the court shall commit the defendant to the custody of the department of human services until such time as the defendant is found eligible for release. The executive director of the department of human services shall designate the state facility at which the defendant is held for care and psychiatric treatment and may transfer the defendant from one facility 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.
(5) This section applies to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1995; except that subsection (4)(a) of this section applies to individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity on or after September 1, 2022.
Source: L. 96: Entire section added, p. 4, § 1, effective January 31. L. 2022: (4) and (5) amended, (HB 22-1061), ch. 438, p. 3080, § 1, effective August 10.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1998–2021 · leading case:
People v. Laeke, 2012 CO 13, 271 P.3d 1111.
People v. Laeke, 2012 CO 13, 271 P.3d 1111.
· cites it 15× “Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a defendant has a statutory right, under section 16-8-105.5, C.R.S. (2011), to a jury trial when the district court enters a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity over the defendant's objection and the prosecution stipulates…”
People v. Garcia, 113 P.3d 775 (Colo. 2005).
· cites it 5× “The entry and acceptance of such a plea automatically triggers a court-ordered mental health examination of the defendant pursuant to section 16-8-105.5. The four elements necessary for involuntary intoxication differ completely from the factual elements establishing insanity.”
People v. Marko, 2015 COA 139, 434 P.3d 618.
· cites it 2× “â § 16-8-105.5(1), C.R.S. 2015. To preserve a defendantâs privilege against self-incrimination, evidence derived from court-ordered sanity examinations may be used only to determine whether the defendant is legally insane and cannot be considered in determining the…”
People v. Bielecki, 964 P.2d 598 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 7× “1997 (requiring a single trial on sanity and guilt) and §16-8-105.5, C.R.S.1997 (setting forth procedures after acceptance of a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity).”
People v. Welsh, 176 P.3d 781 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “Section 16-8-105.5(2), C.R.S.2006, states, in relevant part: “Every person is presumed to be sane; but, once any evidence of insanity is introduced, the people have the burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.”
People v. Voth, 2013 CO 61, 312 P.3d 144.
· cites it 4× “3d 1111, 1115-16 (holding that a defendant does not have the right to a jury trial where a plea of NGRI is entered and the prosecution concedes that the defendant was insane at the time of the offense), and section 16-8-105.5(4) (requiring that a defendant found NGRI be…”
People v. Vanrees, 125 P.3d 403 (Colo. 2005).
· cites it 4× “This defense must be raised at the time of arraignment, or at any time before trial when the court permits it for good cause shown. § 16-8-103(1.5)(a), C.”
People v. Wilburn, 2012 CO 21, 272 P.3d 1078.
· cites it 7× “The prosecution argued that section 16-8-105.5, C.R.S. (2011) thus applies, 4 and Wilburn would need to be committed to a state mental health *1081 facility for a period of time to complete a mental examination.”
People v. Welsh, 80 P.3d 296 (Colo. 2003).
· cites it 2× “§ 16-8-105.5(2), 6 C.R.S. (2003). In an attempt to satisfy that burden, the People introduced the following evidence describing the defendant's behavior in the hours following the shooting.”
In Re People v. Rosas, 2020 CO 22, 459 P.3d 540.
· cites it 2× “” § 16-8-106(1)(a); see also § 16-8-105.5(1), C.R.S. (2019) (noting that “the court shall forthwith commit the defendant for a sanity examination, specifying the place and period of commitment”).”
People v. Grant, 174 P.3d 798 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“Sections 16-8-105.5(1), 16-8-106(1), C.R.”
People v. Laeke, 280 P.3d 1 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 10× “The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a jury trial consistent with the procedures detailed in section 16-8-105.5. Judge CARPARELLI and Judge RICHMAN concur.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-105.5(1): 4 cases
People v. Marko, 2015 COA 139, 434 P.3d 618.
“â § 16-8-105.5(1), C.R.S. 2015. To preserve a defendantâs privilege against self-incrimination, evidence derived from court-ordered sanity examinations may be used only to determine whether the defendant is legally insane and cannot be considered in determining the…”
In Re People v. Rosas, 2020 CO 22, 459 P.3d 540.
“” § 16-8-106(1)(a); see also § 16-8-105.5(1), C.R.S. (2019) (noting that “the court shall forthwith commit the defendant for a sanity examination, specifying the place and period of commitment”).”
People v. Grant, 174 P.3d 798 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“Sections 16-8-105.5(1), 16-8-106(1), C.R.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-105.5(2): 8 cases
People v. Welsh, 176 P.3d 781 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“Section 16-8-105.5(2), C.R.S.2006, states, in relevant part: “Every person is presumed to be sane; but, once any evidence of insanity is introduced, the people have the burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.”
People v. Welsh, 80 P.3d 296 (Colo. 2003).
“§ 16-8-105.5(2), 6 C.R.S. (2003). In an attempt to satisfy that burden, the People introduced the following evidence describing the defendant's behavior in the hours following the shooting.”
People v. Bielecki, 964 P.2d 598 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
“1997 (requiring a single trial on sanity and guilt) and §16-8-105.5, C.R.S.1997 (setting forth procedures after acceptance of a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity).”
People v. Laeke, 2012 CO 13, 271 P.3d 1111.
“Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a defendant has a statutory right, under section 16-8-105.5, C.R.S. (2011), to a jury trial when the district court enters a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity over the defendant's objection and the prosecution stipulates…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-105.5(3): 1 case
People v. Bielecki, 964 P.2d 598 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998).
“1997 (requiring a single trial on sanity and guilt) and §16-8-105.5, C.R.S.1997 (setting forth procedures after acceptance of a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity).”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-105.5(4): 5 cases
People v. Voth, 2013 CO 61, 312 P.3d 144.
“3d 1111, 1115-16 (holding that a defendant does not have the right to a jury trial where a plea of NGRI is entered and the prosecution concedes that the defendant was insane at the time of the offense), and section 16-8-105.5(4) (requiring that a defendant found NGRI be…”
People v. Vanrees, 125 P.3d 403 (Colo. 2005).
“This defense must be raised at the time of arraignment, or at any time before trial when the court permits it for good cause shown. § 16-8-103(1.5)(a), C.”
People v. Garcia, 113 P.3d 775 (Colo. 2005).
“The entry and acceptance of such a plea automatically triggers a court-ordered mental health examination of the defendant pursuant to section 16-8-105.5. The four elements necessary for involuntary intoxication differ completely from the factual elements establishing insanity.”
People v. Laeke, 2012 CO 13, 271 P.3d 1111.
“Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a defendant has a statutory right, under section 16-8-105.5, C.R.S. (2011), to a jury trial when the district court enters a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity over the defendant's objection and the prosecution stipulates…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-105.5(8): 2 cases
People v. Laeke, 2012 CO 13, 271 P.3d 1111.
“Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that a defendant has a statutory right, under section 16-8-105.5, C.R.S. (2011), to a jury trial when the district court enters a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity over the defendant's objection and the prosecution stipulates…”
People v. Laeke, 280 P.3d 1 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a jury trial consistent with the procedures detailed in section 16-8-105.5. Judge CARPARELLI and Judge RICHMAN concur.”
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.