Colorado Revised Statutes
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-109 (2024)
Testimony of lay witnesses
✓ C.R.S. 2024: the 2025 and 2026 sessions are not included
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In any trial or hearing in which the mental condition of the defendant is an issue, witnesses not specially trained in psychiatry or psychology may testify as to their observation of the defendant's actions and conduct, and as to conversations which they have had with him bearing upon his mental condition, and they shall be permitted to give their opinions or conclusions concerning the mental condition of the defendant.
Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 229, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-8-109.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Dunlap v. People, 173 P.3d 1054 (Colo. 2007).
Dunlap v. People, 173 P.3d 1054 (Colo. 2007). “The 35(c) court allowed the witnesses to opine about Dunlap's mental health under Colorado Rule of Evidence 701 and section 16-8-109, C.R.S. Rule 701 states: If the witness is not testifying as an expert, the witness' testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is limited to…”
People v. Grant, 174 P.3d 798 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “See § 16-8-109, C.R.S.2006; People v. Rubanowitz, 673 P.”
People v. Galimanis, 765 P.2d 644 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989). “8A) provides that: "In any trial or hearing in which the mental condition of the defendant is an issue, witnesses not specially trained in psychiatry or psychology may testify as to their observation of the defendant's actions and conduct, and as to conversations which they have…”
People v. Lane, 2014 COA 48, 343 P.3d 1019. “*1026 ¶31 Lane asserts that the trial court erred in so ruling because (1) the lay witness testimony was relevant evidence of his actual belief relating to self-defense and was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and (2) the court's ruling "gutted"…”
Cordova v. People, 817 P.2d 66 (Colo. 1991). “Although the defendant did not elicit expert testimony in support of the affirmative defense, he presented credible lay testimony, pursuant to section 16-8-109, 8A C.R.S. (1986), that clearly was sufficient to place the affirmative defense in issue and to require the prosecution…”
Jones v. Dist. Court in & for Twenty-first Jud. Dist., 617 P.2d 803 (Colo. 1980). “Section 16-8-109, C.R.S. 1973, (now in 1978 Repl.”
People v. Giles, 557 P.2d 408 (Colo. 1976). “It is asserted here that one not a psychiatrist may not give opinion testimony on the defendant’s mental condition.”
People v. Porter, 2013 COA 130, 353 P.3d 852. “§ 16-8-109, C.R.S.2012. Because the legislature specifically contemplated testimony from witnesses trained in "psychiatry or psychology," see id.”
People v. Flippo, 159 P.3d 100 (Colo. 2007). “Compare § 16-8-107(1)(a) (addressing a court-ordered psychiatric examination to determine a defendant's mental condition of insanity) with § 16-8-109 (permitting a witness not specially trained in psychiatry to give an opinion or conclusion concerning the mental condition of a…”
People v. Wright, 648 P.2d 665 (Colo. 1982). “Both defense experts testified that the defendant’s minimal brain dysfunction resulted in poor impulse control, and that the defendant was incapable of choosing the right and refraining from doing the wrong.”
People v. Henderson, 794 P.2d 1050 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990). “This testimony is specifically permitted by § 16-8-109, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A). Nor do we agree with defendant that the prejudice resulting from indirectly informing the jury that defendant had been in jail outweighed the probative value of the testimony.”
People v. Osborn, 599 P.2d 937 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979). “See also § 16-8-109, C.R.S.1973 (now in 1978 Repl.”
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.