(1) (a) If the defendant wishes to be examined by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other expert of his own choice in connection with any proceeding under this article, the court, upon timely motion, shall order that the examiner chosen by the defendant be given reasonable opportunity to conduct the examination. An interview conducted pursuant to a court order under 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 audio and video recorded. A copy of the recording must be provided to the prosecution 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 available. 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.
(b) 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. 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.
(c) 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 copy of any report of examination of the defendant made at the instance of the defense shall be furnished to the prosecution a reasonable time in advance of trial.
Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 229, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-8-108. L. 87: (2) amended, p. 623, § 4, effective July 1. L. 2016: (1) amended, (SB 16-019), ch. 297, p. 1207, § 2, effective January 1, 2017.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case:
People v. White, 870 P.2d 424 (Colo. 1994).
People v. White, 870 P.2d 424 (Colo. 1994).
· cites it 28× “On June 15, White filed a motion requesting the district court to issue an order authorizing a second psychiatric evaluation of White to be conducted by a psychiatrist of White's own selection pursuant to section 16-8-108, 8A C.R.S. (1986). The People opposed this motion on the…”
People v. Palmer, 31 P.3d 863 (Colo. 2001).
· cites it 30× “Specifically, we granted certiorari to determine whether the court of appeals erred in adopting the Wilson approach, in holding that a remand was necessary in this case, and in holding that Defendant was entitled to a second competency examination by a psychiatric expert under…”
People v. Rosenthal, 617 P.2d 551 (Colo. 1980).
· cites it 25× “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.R.S.1973. The unrestricted use at the guilt trial of the…”
Gray v. Dist. Court of the Eleventh Jud. Dist., 884 P.2d 286 (Colo. 1994).
· cites it 29× “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, including services of psychologists, as is advisable under the circumstances.”
People v. Roark, 643 P.2d 756 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 12× “Steele is a psychiatrist who examined the defendant at the latter's request in preparation for the sanity trial, in accordance with section 16-8-108, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol.”
Hendricks v. People, 10 P.3d 1231 (Colo. 2000).
· cites it 10× “Hendricks now argues that the trial court and court of appeals conducted an erroneous legal analysis to evaluate defense counsel's motion under sections 16-8-108(2) and 16-8-103.5(2). She further contends that the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court's rejection…”
In Re People v. Rosas, 2020 CO 22 (Colo. 2020).
· cites it 6× “3 The court appears to have relied on section 16-8-108(1)(a), C.R.S. (2019), but that provision simply permits a defendant to request a second court-ordered examination—one that may be performed “by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other expert of his own choice.”
People v. Fuller, 791 P.2d 702 (Colo. 1990).
· cites it 4× “Section 16-8-108, 8A C.R.S. (1986 & 1989 Supp.”
People v. Laeke, 271 P.3d 1111 (Colo. 2012).
· cites it 6× “2000) (holding that, pursuant to section 16-8-103, a defendant does not have an absolute right to waive the assertion of a mental status defense when such defense is sought by counsel, and setting forth a balancing test for trial courts to rule whether the NGRI plea is…”
People v. Pearson, 546 P.2d 1259 (Colo. 1976).
· cites it 3× “9 Now section 16-8-108, C.R.S. 1973. 10 Now section 16-8-104, C.”
People v. Herdman, 310 P.3d 170 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “) 122 Section 16-8-107(8)(b), in turn, provides, in pertinent part: Regardless of whether a defendant enters a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity pursuant to section 16-8-108, [C.R.S.2011,] the defendant shall not be permitted to introduce evidence in the nature of expert…”
People v. Laeke, 280 P.3d 1 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 7× “See §§ 16-8-108(1.5)(a), 16-8-105.5(8). The People also contend that an NGRI plea is in the nature of confession and avoidance, under which a defendant admits the acts charged, but denies criminal culpability, citing People v.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-108(1) — 6 cases
People v. Rosenthal, 617 P.2d 551 (Colo. 1980).
“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.R.S.1973. The unrestricted use at the guilt trial of the…”
People v. Roark, 643 P.2d 756 (Colo. 1982).
“Steele is a psychiatrist who examined the defendant at the latter's request in preparation for the sanity trial, in accordance with section 16-8-108, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-108(1)(a) — 2 cases
In Re People v. Rosas, 2020 CO 22 (Colo. 2020).
“3 The court appears to have relied on section 16-8-108(1)(a), C.R.S. (2019), but that provision simply permits a defendant to request a second court-ordered examination—one that may be performed “by a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other expert of his own choice.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-108(2) — 6 cases
Gray v. Dist. Court of the Eleventh Jud. Dist., 884 P.2d 286 (Colo. 1994).
“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, including services of psychologists, as is advisable under the circumstances.”
Hendricks v. People, 10 P.3d 1231 (Colo. 2000).
“Hendricks now argues that the trial court and court of appeals conducted an erroneous legal analysis to evaluate defense counsel's motion under sections 16-8-108(2) and 16-8-103.5(2). She further contends that the court of appeals erred in affirming the trial court's rejection…”
People v. Laeke, 271 P.3d 1111 (Colo. 2012).
“2000) (holding that, pursuant to section 16-8-103, a defendant does not have an absolute right to waive the assertion of a mental status defense when such defense is sought by counsel, and setting forth a balancing test for trial courts to rule whether the NGRI plea is…”
People v. Rosenthal, 617 P.2d 551 (Colo. 1980).
“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.R.S.1973. The unrestricted use at the guilt trial of the…”
People v. Laeke, 280 P.3d 1 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“See §§ 16-8-108(1.5)(a), 16-8-105.5(8). The People also contend that an NGRI plea is in the nature of confession and avoidance, under which a defendant admits the acts charged, but denies criminal culpability, citing People v.”
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.