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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-111 (2026)

Determination of incompetency to proceed

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

(Repealed) Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 229, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-8-111. L. 2001: (1) amended and

(4) added, p. 407, § 4, effective April 19. L. 2006: (1) amended and (3.5) added, p. 178, § 2, effective March 31. L. 2008: Entire section repealed, p. 1856, § 9, effective July 1.

Editor's note: In 2008, this section was relocated to § 16-8.5-103.

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 34 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Jones v. Dist. Court in & for Twenty-first Jud. Dist., 617 P.2d 803 (Colo. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jones v. Dist. Court in & for Twenty-first Jud. Dist., 617 P.2d 803 (Colo. 1980). · cites it 27× “He protests the rulings of the respondent court in requiring his attorney to argue pending motions on capital punishment-issues in the face of the petitioner’s claimed incompetency and in refusing to order a competency examination or make further inquiry into his mental state…”
People v. Corichi, 18 P.3d 807 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “Section 16-8-111(1), C.R.S.1999. When a timely request for a hearing is made, the court must hold a hearing and may commit the defendant for a competency examination prior to the hearing if adequate psychiatric information is not already available.”
Bloom v. People, 185 P.3d 797 (Colo. 2008). · cites it 10× “Bloom's second argument is that section 16-8-111 does not authorize the trial court to order anything less than a formal competency examination, and that the trial court therefore abused its discretion in this case by relying on Moran's medical evaluation, which was not a formal…”
In re the People ex rel. W.P., 295 P.3d 514 (Colo. 2013). · cites it 8× “For example, it replaced section 16-8-111, CRS. (2007)-which had committed the question of whether or not a defendant could receive a competency evaluation 5 to a court's discretion-with section 16-8.”
People v. Price, 240 P.3d 557 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “Competency Price also contends that once defense counsel informed the court that competency was an issue based on the attempted suicide and resulting mental health hold, the trial court erred by failing to follow the mandate of former section 16-8-110, which directed a court to…”
People v. Palmer, 31 P.3d 863 (Colo. 2001). · cites it 8× “§ 16-8-111, 6 C.R.S. (2000); Jones, 617 P.”
People v. Stephenson, 165 P.3d 860 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 7× “See § 16-8-111(8.5), C.R.S.2006 ("[al competency examination shall be conducted by a licensed psychiatrist or a licensed psychologist who is trained in forensic competency assessments").”
State v. Reid, 164 S.W.3d 286 (Tenn. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 16-8-111; Conn. Gen.”
People v. MacK, 638 P.2d 257 (Colo. 1981). · cites it 6× “9 Section 16-8-111(1), C.R.S.1973 *264 (1978 Repl.”
Godbold v. Dist. Court in & for the Twenty-First Jud. Dist., 623 P.2d 862 (Colo. 1981). · cites it 6× “[6] The competency examination was ordered pursuant to section 16-8-111, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol.”
People v. Matthews, 662 P.2d 1108 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 12× “On this ground, we agree that the judgment of conviction must be reversed. I. When a trial court has reason to believe a defendant incompetent, § 16-8-110, C.”
Cappelli v. Honorable Demlow, 935 P.2d 57 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 12× “Further, the relevant portion of § 16-8-111, C.R.S. (1986 RepLVol. 8A) provides that: (1) Whenever the question of a defendant’s incompetency to proceed is raised, the court shall make a preliminary finding either that the defendant is competent to proceed or that he is not.”
Show all 34 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-111(1) — 13 cases
Jones v. Dist. Court in & for Twenty-first Jud. Dist., 617 P.2d 803 (Colo. 1980). “He protests the rulings of the respondent court in requiring his attorney to argue pending motions on capital punishment-issues in the face of the petitioner’s claimed incompetency and in refusing to order a competency examination or make further inquiry into his mental state…”
People v. Corichi, 18 P.3d 807 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). “Section 16-8-111(1), C.R.S.1999. When a timely request for a hearing is made, the court must hold a hearing and may commit the defendant for a competency examination prior to the hearing if adequate psychiatric information is not already available.”
People v. MacK, 638 P.2d 257 (Colo. 1981). “9 Section 16-8-111(1), C.R.S.1973 *264 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Stephenson, 165 P.3d 860 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “See § 16-8-111(8.5), C.R.S.2006 ("[al competency examination shall be conducted by a licensed psychiatrist or a licensed psychologist who is trained in forensic competency assessments").”
People v. Palmer, 31 P.3d 863 (Colo. 2001). “§ 16-8-111, 6 C.R.S. (2000); Jones, 617 P.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-111(2) — 15 cases
Jones v. Dist. Court in & for Twenty-first Jud. Dist., 617 P.2d 803 (Colo. 1980). “He protests the rulings of the respondent court in requiring his attorney to argue pending motions on capital punishment-issues in the face of the petitioner’s claimed incompetency and in refusing to order a competency examination or make further inquiry into his mental state…”
People v. Corichi, 18 P.3d 807 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). “Section 16-8-111(1), C.R.S.1999. When a timely request for a hearing is made, the court must hold a hearing and may commit the defendant for a competency examination prior to the hearing if adequate psychiatric information is not already available.”
Bloom v. People, 185 P.3d 797 (Colo. 2008). “Bloom's second argument is that section 16-8-111 does not authorize the trial court to order anything less than a formal competency examination, and that the trial court therefore abused its discretion in this case by relying on Moran's medical evaluation, which was not a formal…”
People v. Palmer, 31 P.3d 863 (Colo. 2001). “§ 16-8-111, 6 C.R.S. (2000); Jones, 617 P.”
Cappelli v. Honorable Demlow, 935 P.2d 57 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). “Further, the relevant portion of § 16-8-111, C.R.S. (1986 RepLVol. 8A) provides that: (1) Whenever the question of a defendant’s incompetency to proceed is raised, the court shall make a preliminary finding either that the defendant is competent to proceed or that he is not.”
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.