(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 to a jury on the issue raised by the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. In all cases except class 1, class 2, and class 3 felonies, the defendant may waive jury trial by an express written instrument or announcement in open court appearing of record. If the court and the district attorney consent, jury trial may be waived in a class 1, class 2, or class 3 felony case. 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) If the trier of fact finds the defendant was sane at the time of commission of the offense, the court, unless it has reason to believe that the defendant is incompetent to proceed or the question is otherwise raised as provided in section 16-8.5-102, shall immediately set the case for trial on the issues raised by the plea of not guilty. If the question of whether the defendant is incompetent to proceed is raised, the court shall follow the procedure set forth in section 16-8.5- 103.
(4) If the trier of fact finds the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity, 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. 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.
(5) This section shall apply to offenses committed before July 1, 1995.
Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 226, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-8-105. L. 75: (2) amended, p. 613, § 1, effective July 1. L. 94: (4) amended, p. 2648, § 118, effective July 1. L. 96: (5) added, p. 5, § 2, effective January 31. L. 2008: (3) amended, p. 1851, § 5, effective July 1.
Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 1994 act amending subsection (4), see section 1 of chapter 345, Session Laws of Colorado 1994. For the legislative declaration contained in the 2008 act amending subsection (3), see section 1 of chapter 389, Session Laws of Colorado 2008.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
45
cases, 1975–2012 · leading case:
People v. Chavez, 629 P.2d 1040 (Colo. 1981).
People v. Chavez, 629 P.2d 1040 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 25× “” 11 Statutory procedure requires the court to advise the defendant of these consequences before accepting an insanity plea. Section 16-8-103(4), C.”
People v. Fetty, 650 P.2d 541 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 18× “The appellant pled not guilty by reason of insanity and the trial court, pursuant to section 16-8-105(1), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Laeke, 271 P.3d 1111 (Colo. 2012).
· cites it 10× “" However, the same wording existed in the earlier statute and remains codified in section 16-8-105. We have never construed this language to confer a substantive right to a jury trial when insanity is uncontested.”
People v. Roark, 643 P.2d 756 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 6× “For this reason, we have held that statements by a defendant to an examining psychiatrist during a court-ordered examination under section 16-8-105, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Davis, 794 P.2d 159 (Colo. 1990).
· cites it 4× “Thus, we declined to overrule Brisbin and upheld the provision of section 16-8-105(2) requiring the consent of the prosecutor to waive a trial by jury in cases where a defendant enters a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.”
People v. Grant, 174 P.3d 798 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “Section 16-8-105(2), C.R.8.2006, provides that "[elvery person is presumed to be sane; but, onee any evidence of insanity is introduced, the people have the burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.”
People v. Gilliland, 769 P.2d 477 (Colo. 1989).
· cites it 9× “§ 16-8-105(4), 8A C.R.S. (1986). The automatic commitment requirement of Colorado’s statutory scheme serves two basic purposes.”
People v. Hill, 934 P.2d 821 (Colo. 1997).
· cites it 8× “Hill pled not guilty by reason of insanity and a trial was held to determine if Hill was legally insane at the time of the offenses, pursuant to section 16-8-105(2), 8A C.R.S. (1986). Hill presented an expert witness, Dr.”
People v. Riggs, 87 P.3d 109 (Colo. 2004).
· cites it 2× “The district attorney petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari. II. A defendant who is acquitted of a crime by successfully asserting the defense of insanity must be committed to the custody of the Department of Human Services until he is found eligible for release.”
Marshall v. Kort, 690 P.2d 219 (Colo. 1984).
· cites it 7× “In addition, section 16-8-105(4), 8 C.R.S. (1978) provides that persons in the petitioner's situation shall receive "care and psychiatric treatment.”
People v. Serravo, 823 P.2d 128 (Colo. 1992).
· cites it 5× “See § 16-8-105, 8A C.R.S. (1986). “The sanity trial is designed to determine whether the defendant was sane or insane at the time of the alleged offense, and the issue of guilt or innocence plays no part in the resolution of this issue.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-105(1) — 4 cases
People v. Fetty, 650 P.2d 541 (Colo. 1982).
“The appellant pled not guilty by reason of insanity and the trial court, pursuant to section 16-8-105(1), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-105(2) — 15 cases
People v. Davis, 794 P.2d 159 (Colo. 1990).
“Thus, we declined to overrule Brisbin and upheld the provision of section 16-8-105(2) requiring the consent of the prosecutor to waive a trial by jury in cases where a defendant enters a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity.”
People v. Grant, 174 P.3d 798 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“Section 16-8-105(2), C.R.8.2006, provides that "[elvery person is presumed to be sane; but, onee any evidence of insanity is introduced, the people have the burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.”
People v. Hill, 934 P.2d 821 (Colo. 1997).
“Hill pled not guilty by reason of insanity and a trial was held to determine if Hill was legally insane at the time of the offenses, pursuant to section 16-8-105(2), 8A C.R.S. (1986). Hill presented an expert witness, Dr.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-105(3) — 3 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-105(4) — 20 cases
People v. Chavez, 629 P.2d 1040 (Colo. 1981).
“” 11 Statutory procedure requires the court to advise the defendant of these consequences before accepting an insanity plea. Section 16-8-103(4), C.”
People v. Fetty, 650 P.2d 541 (Colo. 1982).
“The appellant pled not guilty by reason of insanity and the trial court, pursuant to section 16-8-105(1), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Gilliland, 769 P.2d 477 (Colo. 1989).
“§ 16-8-105(4), 8A C.R.S. (1986). The automatic commitment requirement of Colorado’s statutory scheme serves two basic purposes.”
People v. Riggs, 87 P.3d 109 (Colo. 2004).
“The district attorney petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari. II. A defendant who is acquitted of a crime by successfully asserting the defense of insanity must be committed to the custody of the Department of Human Services until he is found eligible for release.”
Marshall v. Kort, 690 P.2d 219 (Colo. 1984).
“In addition, section 16-8-105(4), 8 C.R.S. (1978) provides that persons in the petitioner's situation shall receive "care and psychiatric treatment.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-105(8) — 1 case
People v. Laeke, 271 P.3d 1111 (Colo. 2012).
“" However, the same wording existed in the earlier statute and remains codified in section 16-8-105. We have never construed this language to confer a substantive right to a jury trial when insanity is uncontested.”
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.