Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 16
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-106 (2026)

Examinations and report

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) (a) All examinations ordered by the court in criminal cases shall be accomplished by the entry of an order of the court specifying the place where such examination is to be conducted and the period of time allocated for such examination. The defendant may be committed for such examination to the Colorado psychiatric hospital in Denver, the Colorado mental health institute at Pueblo, the place where he or she is in custody, or such other public institution designated by the court. In determining the place where such examination is to be conducted, the court shall give priority to the place where the defendant is in custody, unless the nature and circumstances of the examination require designation of a different facility. The defendant shall be observed and examined by one or more psychiatrists or forensic psychologists during such period as the court directs. For good cause shown, upon motion of the prosecution or defendant, or upon the court's own motion, the court may order such further or other examination as is advisable under the circumstances. Nothing in this section shall abridge the right of the defendant to procure an examination as provided in section 16-8-108.

(b) An interview conducted in any case that includes a class 1 or class 2 felony charge or a felony sex offense charge described in section 18-3-402, 18-3-404, 18-3-405, or 18-3-405.5, C.R.S., pursuant to this section must be video and audio recorded and preserved. The court shall advise the defendant that any examination with a psychiatrist or forensic psychologist may be video and audio recorded. A copy of the recording must be provided to all parties and the court with the examination report. Any jail or other facility where the court orders the examination to take place must permit the recording to occur and must provide the space and equipment necessary for such recording. If space and equipment are not available, the sheriff or facility director shall attempt to coordinate a location and the availability of equipment with the court, which may consult with the district attorney and defense counsel for an agreed upon location. If no agreement is reached, and upon the request of either the defense counsel or district attorney, the court shall order the location of the examination, which may include the Colorado mental health institute at Pueblo.

(c) (I) Prior to or during any examination required by this section, the psychiatrist or forensic psychologist shall assess whether the recording of the examination is likely to cause or is causing mental or physical harm to the defendant or others or will make the examination not useful to the expert forensic opinion. If such a determination is made and documented contemporaneously in writing, the psychiatrist or forensic psychologist shall not record the examination or shall cease recording the examination, and the psychiatrist or forensic psychologist shall advise the court and the parties of this determination and the reasons therefore in a written report to the court. If only a partial recording is made, the psychiatrist or forensic psychologist shall provide the partial recording to the court and the parties, and the partial recording may be used by any psychiatrist or forensic psychologist in forming an opinion, submitting a report, or testifying on the issue of the defendant's mental health.

(II) If the examination is not recorded in whole or in part, the written report explaining the decision not to record the examination is admissible as evidence, and, at the request of either party, the court shall instruct the jury that failure to record the examination may be considered by the jury in determining the weight to afford the expert witness testimony.

(III) The psychiatrist or forensic psychologist does not need to record the administration of psychometric testing that involves the use of copyrighted material.

(d) The court shall determine the admissibility of any recording or partial recording, in whole or in part, subject to all available constitutional and evidentiary objections.

(2) (a) The defendant shall have a privilege against self-incrimination during the course of an examination under this section. The fact of the defendant's noncooperation with psychiatrists, forensic psychologists, and other personnel conducting the examination may be admissible in the defendant's trial on the issue of insanity or impaired mental condition and in any sentencing hearing held pursuant to section 18-1.3-1201 or 18-1.3-1302, C.R.S. This paragraph (a) shall apply only to offenses committed before July 1, 1995.

(b) The defendant shall have a privilege against self-incrimination during the course of an examination under this section. The fact of the defendant's noncooperation with psychiatrists, forensic psychologists, and other personnel conducting the examination may be admissible in the defendant's trial on the issue of insanity and in any sentencing hearing held pursuant to section 18-1.3-1201 or 18-1.4-102, C.R.S. This paragraph (b) shall apply to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1995, but prior to July 1, 1999.

(c) The defendant shall cooperate with psychiatrists, forensic psychologists, and other personnel conducting any examination ordered by the court pursuant to this section. Statements made by the defendant in the course of the examination shall be protected as provided in section 16-8-107. If the defendant does not cooperate with psychiatrists, forensic psychologists, and other personnel conducting the examination, the court shall not allow the defendant to call any psychiatrist, forensic psychologist, or other expert witness to provide evidence at the defendant's trial concerning the defendant's mental condition including, but not limited to, providing evidence on the issue of insanity or at any sentencing hearing held pursuant to section 18-1.3- 1201 for an offense charged prior to July 1, 2020, or pursuant to section 18-1.4-102. In addition, the fact of the defendant's noncooperation with psychiatrists, forensic psychologists, and other personnel conducting the examination may be admissible in the defendant's trial to rebut any evidence introduced by the defendant with regard to the defendant's mental condition including, but not limited to, the issue of insanity and in any sentencing hearing held pursuant to section 18-1.3-1201 for an offense charged prior to July 1, 2020, or pursuant to section 18-1.4-102. This subsection (2)(c) applies to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1999. (3) (a) To aid in forming an opinion as to the mental condition of the defendant, it is permissible in the course of an examination under this section to use confessions and admissions of the defendant and any other evidence of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense, as well as the medical and social history of the defendant, in questioning the defendant. When the defendant is noncooperative with psychiatrists, forensic psychologists, and other personnel conducting the examination, an opinion of the mental condition of the defendant may be rendered by such psychiatrists, forensic psychologists, or other personnel based upon such confessions, admissions, and any other evidence of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense, as well as the known medical and social history of the defendant, and such opinion may be admissible into evidence at trial and in any sentencing hearing held pursuant to section 18-1.3-1201 or 18-1.3-1302, C.R.S. It shall also be permissible to conduct a narcoanalytic interview of the defendant with such drugs as are medically appropriate and to subject the defendant to polygraph examination. In any trial or hearing on the issue of the defendant's sanity, eligibility for release, or impaired mental condition, and in any sentencing hearing held pursuant to section 18-1.3-1201 or 18-1.3-1302, C.R.S., the physicians and other personnel conducting the examination may testify to the results of any such procedures and the statements and reactions of the defendant insofar as the same entered into the formation of their opinions as to the mental condition of the defendant both at the time of the commission of the alleged offense and at the present time. This paragraph (a) shall apply only to offenses committed before July 1, 1995. (b) To aid in forming an opinion as to the mental condition of the defendant, it is permissible in the course of an examination under this section to use confessions and admissions of the defendant and any other evidence of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense, as well as the medical and social history of the defendant, in questioning the defendant. When the defendant is noncooperative with psychiatrists, forensic psychologists, and other personnel conducting the examination, an opinion of the mental condition of the defendant may be rendered by such psychiatrists, forensic psychologists, or other personnel based upon such confessions, admissions, and any other evidence of the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense, as well as the known medical and social history of the defendant, and such opinion may be admissible into evidence at trial and in any sentencing hearing held pursuant to section 18-1.3-1201 for an offense charged prior to July 1, 2020, or pursuant to section 18-1.4-102. It shall also be permissible to conduct a narcoanalytic interview of the defendant with such drugs as are medically appropriate and to subject the defendant to polygraph examination. In any trial or hearing on the issue of the defendant's sanity or eligibility for release, and in any sentencing hearing held pursuant to section 18-1.3-1201 for an offense charged prior to July 1, 2020, or pursuant to section 18-1.4-102, the physicians and other personnel conducting the examination may testify to the results of any such procedures and the statements and reactions of the defendant insofar as the same entered into the formation of their opinions as to the mental condition of the defendant both at the time of the commission of the alleged offense and at the present time. This subsection (3)(b) applies to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1995.

(c) For offenses committed on or after July 1, 1999, when a defendant undergoes an examination pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this subsection (3) because the defendant has given notice pursuant to section 16-8-107 (3) that he or she intends to introduce expert opinion evidence concerning his or her mental condition, the physicians, forensic psychologists, and other personnel conducting the examination may testify to the results of any such procedures and the statements and reactions of the defendant insofar as such statements and reactions entered into the formation of their opinions as to the mental condition of the defendant.

(4) A written report of the examination shall be prepared in triplicate and delivered to the clerk of the court which ordered it. The clerk shall furnish a copy of the report both to the prosecuting attorney and the counsel for the defendant.

(5) With respect to offenses committed before July 1, 1995, the report of examination shall include, but is not limited to:

(a) The name of each physician, forensic psychologist, or other expert who examined the defendant; and

(b) A description of the nature, content, extent, and results of the examination and any tests conducted; and

(c) A diagnosis and prognosis of the defendant's physical and mental condition; and

(d) (I) An opinion as to whether the defendant suffers from a mental disease or defect; and, if so,

(II) Separate opinions as to whether the defendant was insane or had an impaired mental condition at the time of the commission of the act or is ineligible for release, as those terms are defined in this article, and, in any class 1 felony case, an opinion as to how the mental disease or defect affects any mitigating factor. The nature of the opinions required depends upon the type of examination ordered by the court.

(6) With respect to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1995, the report of examination shall include, but is not limited to, the items described in subsections (5)(a), (5)(b), and (5)(c) of this section, and:

(a) An opinion as to whether the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect or from a condition of mind caused by mental disease or defect that prevented the person from forming the culpable mental state that is an essential element of any crime charged; and, if so,

(b) Separate opinions as to whether the defendant was insane or is ineligible for release, as those terms are defined in this article 8, and, in any class 1 felony case for an offense charged prior to July 1, 2020, an opinion as to how the mental disease or defect or the condition of mind caused by mental disease or defect affects any mitigating factor. The nature of the opinions required depends upon the type of examination ordered by the court.

(7) With respect to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1999, when a defendant has undergone an examination pursuant to the provisions of this section because the defendant has given notice pursuant to section 16-8-107 (3) that he or she intends to introduce expert opinion evidence concerning his or her mental condition, the report of examination shall include, but is not limited to, the items described in subsections (5)(a), (5)(b), and (5)(c) of this section, and:

(a) An opinion as to whether the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect or from a condition of mind caused by mental disease or defect that affected the defendant's mental condition; and, if so,

(b) Separate opinions as to the defendant's mental condition including, but not limited to, whether the defendant was insane or is ineligible for release, as those terms are defined in this article 8, and, in any class 1 felony case for an offense charged prior to July 1, 2020, an opinion as to how the mental disease or defect or the condition of mind caused by mental disease or defect affects any mitigating factor. The nature of the opinions required depends upon the type of examination ordered by the court.

Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 227, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-8-106. L. 73: p. 500, § 1. L. 83: (1), (2), (3), and (5)(e) amended, p. 674, § 4, effective July 1. L. 91: (1) amended, p. 1142, § 3, effective May 18. L. 95: (2), (3), and IP(5) amended and (6) added, p. 75, § 9, effective July 1. L. 98: (2), (3), (5)(d), and (6) amended, p. 382, § 3, effective April 21. L. 99: (2)(b) amended and (2)(c), (3)(c), and (7) added, pp. 401, 402, §§ 1, 2, 3, effective July 1. L. 2002: (2), (3)(a), and (3)(b) amended, p. 1492, § 137, effective October 1. L. 2002, 3rd Ex. Sess.: (2)(b), (2)(c), and (3)(b) amended, pp. 29, 30, §§ 19, 20, effective July 12. L. 2006: (1) amended, p. 177, § 1, effective March 31. L. 2008: (1), (2), (3), (5)(d)(II), (6)(b), and (7)(b) amended, p. 1851, § 6, effective July 1. L. 2013: (1), (2), (3), and (5)(a) amended, (SB 13-116), ch. 115, p. 394, § 4, effective August 7. L. 2016: (1) amended, (SB 16-019), ch. 297, p. 1206, § 1, effective January 1, 2017. L. 2020: (2)(c), (3)(b), IP(6), (6)(b), IP(7), and (7)(b) amended, (SB 20-100), ch. 61, p. 205, § 4, effective March 23.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 2002 act amending subsections (2), (3)(a), and (3)(b), see section 1 of chapter 318, Session Laws of Colorado 2002. For the legislative declaration contained in the 2002 act amending subsections (2)(b), (2)(c), and (3)(b), see section 16 of chapter 1 of the supplement to the Session Laws of Colorado 2002, Third Extraordinary Session. For the legislative declaration contained in the 2008 act amending subsections (1), (2), (3), (5)(d)(II), (6)(b), and (7)(b), see section 1 of chapter 389, Session Laws of Colorado 2008. 16-8-106.5. Competency evaluation advisory board - creation - membership - duties - rules - repeal. (Repealed) Source: L. 2007: Entire section added, p. 40, § 1, effective March 8. L. 2008: Entire section repealed, p. 1854 § 7, effective July 1.

Editor's note: In 2008, this section was relocated to § 16-8.5-119.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 2008 act repealing this section, see section 1 of chapter 389, Session Laws of Colorado 2008.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 61 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: In Re People v. Rosas, 2020 CO 22 (Colo. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re People v. Rosas, 2020 CO 22 (Colo. 2020). · cites it 19× “However, like a defendant who asserts the insanity defense, a defendant relying on section 16-8-107(3)(b) must submit to a court-ordered examination pursuant to section 16-8-106. ¶10 The court granted the People’s motion for a second examination.”
People v. Herrera, 87 P.3d 240 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 33× “Section 16-8-106(@2)(c) essentially requires a defendant to cooperate with a court-ordered sanity examination or lose the ability to call psychiatrists or other expert witnesses to provide evidence on his or her mental condition, including insanity or competency.”
People v. Bondurant, 296 P.3d 200 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 17× “139 To introduce expert testimony concerning mental condition under section 16-8-107(3)(b), a criminal defendant must undergo a court-ordered examination and cooperate therewith pursuant to section 16-8-106. The section provides in relevant part: The defendant shall cooperate…”
People v. Rosenthal, 617 P.2d 551 (Colo. 1980). · cites it 25× “Section 16-8-106, C.R.S.1973, which outlines the protocol for a court-ordered examination, states that nothing therein shall abridge the defendant’s right to an examination by a privately retained psychiatrist under section 16-8-108, C.”
People v. Fuller, 791 P.2d 702 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 12× “(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,…”
People v. Wilburn, 272 P.3d 1078 (Colo. 2012). · cites it 27× “Assuming that Wilburn complies with section 16-8-107(8)(b) and undergoes a court-ordered examination pursuant to section 16-8-106, Wilburn's mistake of fact defense under section 18-1-504(1)(a) may include expert testimony of his learning disability.”
Gray v. Dist. Court of the Eleventh Jud. Dist., 884 P.2d 286 (Colo. 1994). · cites it 26× “The examination to be undertaken under that subsection is ordered by the court pursuant to section 16-8-106. So it must be asked ...”
People v. Palmer, 31 P.3d 863 (Colo. 2001). · cites it 14× “Moreover, a paying defendant wishing to exercise his right to second competency evaluation by an expert of his own choosing must nonetheless make a showing of good cause under section 16-8-106. We therefore disagree with the court of appeals' determination that Defendant was…”
People v. Marko, 2015 COA 139 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 3× “¶197        Section 16-8-106(2)(c), C.R.S. 2015, provides that if a defendant fails to cooperate with the psychiatrist conducting the insanity defense, he or she will not be allowed to present expert testimony on his or her mental condition and insanity.”
People v. Kruse, 839 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 11× “(1986), the district court ordered Kruse to undergo a sanity examination at the Colorado State Hospital pursuant to section 16-8-106, 8A C.R.S. (1986 & 1992 Supp.”
People v. White, 870 P.2d 424 (Colo. 1994). · cites it 12× “White pursuant to C.R.S. § 16-8-106, -108, -110 and -111, to assist him in the competency proceeding, and to allow defense counsel to investigate the sanity and impaired mental condition issues, violated the statute and denied Mr.”
People v. Roadcap, 78 P.3d 1108 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “of not guilty by reason of insanity pursuant to section 16-8-103, the defendant shall not be permitted to introduce evidence in the nature of expert opinion concerning his or her mental condition without having first given notice to the court and the prosecution of his or her…”
Show all 61 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-106(1) — 19 cases
People v. Rosenthal, 617 P.2d 551 (Colo. 1980). “Section 16-8-106, C.R.S.1973, which outlines the protocol for a court-ordered examination, states that nothing therein shall abridge the defendant’s right to an examination by a privately retained psychiatrist under section 16-8-108, C.”
People v. Palmer, 31 P.3d 863 (Colo. 2001). “Moreover, a paying defendant wishing to exercise his right to second competency evaluation by an expert of his own choosing must nonetheless make a showing of good cause under section 16-8-106. We therefore disagree with the court of appeals' determination that Defendant was…”
People v. Wilburn, 272 P.3d 1078 (Colo. 2012). “Assuming that Wilburn complies with section 16-8-107(8)(b) and undergoes a court-ordered examination pursuant to section 16-8-106, Wilburn's mistake of fact defense under section 18-1-504(1)(a) may include expert testimony of his learning disability.”
People v. Grant, 174 P.3d 798 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
People v. Deason, 670 P.2d 792 (Colo. 1983).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-106(1)(a) — 1 case
In Re People v. Rosas, 2020 CO 22 (Colo. 2020). “However, like a defendant who asserts the insanity defense, a defendant relying on section 16-8-107(3)(b) must submit to a court-ordered examination pursuant to section 16-8-106. ¶10 The court granted the People’s motion for a second examination.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-106(2) — 12 cases
People v. Fuller, 791 P.2d 702 (Colo. 1990). “(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,…”
People v. Kruse, 839 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1992). “(1986), the district court ordered Kruse to undergo a sanity examination at the Colorado State Hospital pursuant to section 16-8-106, 8A C.R.S. (1986 & 1992 Supp.”
People v. Pearson, 546 P.2d 1259 (Colo. 1976).
People v. Galimanis, 765 P.2d 644 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
People v. Herrera, 87 P.3d 240 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “Section 16-8-106(@2)(c) essentially requires a defendant to cooperate with a court-ordered sanity examination or lose the ability to call psychiatrists or other expert witnesses to provide evidence on his or her mental condition, including insanity or competency.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-106(2)(a) — 5 cases
People v. Roadcap, 78 P.3d 1108 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “of not guilty by reason of insanity pursuant to section 16-8-103, the defendant shall not be permitted to introduce evidence in the nature of expert opinion concerning his or her mental condition without having first given notice to the court and the prosecution of his or her…”
People v. Bondurant, 296 P.3d 200 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “139 To introduce expert testimony concerning mental condition under section 16-8-107(3)(b), a criminal defendant must undergo a court-ordered examination and cooperate therewith pursuant to section 16-8-106. The section provides in relevant part: The defendant shall cooperate…”
People v. Tally, 7 P.3d 172 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
Hendricks v. People, 10 P.3d 1231 (Colo. 2000).
People v. Vialpando, 954 P.2d 617 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-106(2)(a)(b) — 1 case
People v. Herrera, 87 P.3d 240 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “Section 16-8-106(@2)(c) essentially requires a defendant to cooperate with a court-ordered sanity examination or lose the ability to call psychiatrists or other expert witnesses to provide evidence on his or her mental condition, including insanity or competency.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-106(2)(b) — 4 cases
People v. Herrera, 87 P.3d 240 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “Section 16-8-106(@2)(c) essentially requires a defendant to cooperate with a court-ordered sanity examination or lose the ability to call psychiatrists or other expert witnesses to provide evidence on his or her mental condition, including insanity or competency.”
People v. Bondurant, 296 P.3d 200 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “139 To introduce expert testimony concerning mental condition under section 16-8-107(3)(b), a criminal defendant must undergo a court-ordered examination and cooperate therewith pursuant to section 16-8-106. The section provides in relevant part: The defendant shall cooperate…”
People v. Freeman, 47 P.3d 700 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
People v. Anderson, 70 P.3d 485 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-106(2)(c) — 4 cases
People v. Herrera, 87 P.3d 240 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “Section 16-8-106(@2)(c) essentially requires a defendant to cooperate with a court-ordered sanity examination or lose the ability to call psychiatrists or other expert witnesses to provide evidence on his or her mental condition, including insanity or competency.”
People v. Marko, 2015 COA 139 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). “¶197        Section 16-8-106(2)(c), C.R.S. 2015, provides that if a defendant fails to cooperate with the psychiatrist conducting the insanity defense, he or she will not be allowed to present expert testimony on his or her mental condition and insanity.”
People v. Bondurant, 296 P.3d 200 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). “139 To introduce expert testimony concerning mental condition under section 16-8-107(3)(b), a criminal defendant must undergo a court-ordered examination and cooperate therewith pursuant to section 16-8-106. The section provides in relevant part: The defendant shall cooperate…”
The People of the State of Colorado v. Maria Laida Day, 2026 CO 16 (Colo. 2026).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-106(3) — 5 cases
People v. Roark, 643 P.2d 756 (Colo. 1982).
Gray v. Dist. Court of the Eleventh Jud. Dist., 884 P.2d 286 (Colo. 1994). “The examination to be undertaken under that subsection is ordered by the court pursuant to section 16-8-106. So it must be asked ...”
People v. Rosenthal, 617 P.2d 551 (Colo. 1980). “Section 16-8-106, C.R.S.1973, which outlines the protocol for a court-ordered examination, states that nothing therein shall abridge the defendant’s right to an examination by a privately retained psychiatrist under section 16-8-108, C.”
Miller v. Dist. Court in & for the City & Cnty. of Denver, 737 P.2d 834 (Colo. 1987).
Miller v. Dist. Ct., City & Cty. of Denver, 737 P.2d 834 (Colo. 1987).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-106(4) — 3 cases
People v. Schultheis, 638 P.2d 8 (Colo. 1981).
Gray v. Dist. Court of the Eleventh Jud. Dist., 884 P.2d 286 (Colo. 1994). “The examination to be undertaken under that subsection is ordered by the court pursuant to section 16-8-106. So it must be asked ...”
Lewis v. Thulemeyer, 538 P.2d 441 (Colo. 1975).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-106(6) — 1 case
In Re People v. Rosas, 2020 CO 22 (Colo. 2020). “However, like a defendant who asserts the insanity defense, a defendant relying on section 16-8-107(3)(b) must submit to a court-ordered examination pursuant to section 16-8-106. ¶10 The court granted the People’s motion for a second examination.”
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.