(1) As to any person charged with any crime allegedly committed on or after June 2, 1965, the test for determination of a defendant's sanity for release from commitment, or his eligibility for conditional release, shall be: "That the defendant has no abnormal mental condition which would be likely to cause him to be dangerous either to himself or to others or to the community in the reasonably foreseeable future".
(2) As to any person charged with any crime allegedly committed prior to June 2, 1965, the test for determination of a defendant's sanity for release from commitment, or his eligibility for conditional release, shall be the test provided by law at the time of the alleged crime to determine the sanity or insanity of such defendant.
(3) As to any person charged with any crime allegedly committed on or after July 1, 1983, the test for determination of a defendant's sanity for release from commitment, or his eligibility for conditional release, shall be: "That the defendant has no abnormal mental condition which would be likely to cause him to be dangerous either to himself or others or to the community in the reasonably foreseeable future, and is capable of distinguishing right from wrong and has substantial capacity to conform his conduct to requirements of law".
(4) As to any person charged with any crime allegedly committed on or after July 1, 1983, but before July 1, 1995, resulting in commitment by reason of impaired mental condition, the test for determination of a defendant's mental condition for release from commitment, or a defendant's eligibility for conditional release, shall be: "That the defendant has no abnormal mental condition which would be likely to cause the defendant to be dangerous either to himself or herself or to others or to the community in the reasonably foreseeable future".
Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 232, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-8-120. L. 83: (3) added, p. 680, § 3, effective July 1; (4) added, p. 676, § 9, effective July 1. L. 95: (4) amended, p. 78, § 13, effective July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases, 1976–2004 · leading case:
People v. Garlotte, 958 P.2d 469 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).
People v. Garlotte, 958 P.2d 469 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 20× “(emphasis added) On August 23, 1990, the trial court granted the State Hospital's request to place defendant on conditional release pursuant to § 16-8-120, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A), incorporating a recommendation of the Chief Officer of the Colorado State Hospital dated July…”
People v. Riggs, 87 P.3d 109 (Colo. 2004).
· cites it 4× “§ 16-8-120(1). Largely because of this presumptive continuation of a state of mental incapacity and danger to the public, imposing a burden on insanity acquittees to prove their eligibility for release has been upheld as justified under certain circumstances.”
Marshall v. Kort, 690 P.2d 219 (Colo. 1984).
· cites it 12× “In discharging the writ of habeas corpus, the court concluded that, having been committed under the Criminal Code, petitioner could be released from custody only when he met the statutory criteria specified in section 16-8-120.”
People v. Chavez, 629 P.2d 1040 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 6× “Section 16-8-120(1), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.”
Vialpando v. People, 727 P.2d 1090 (Colo. 1986).
· cites it 10× “§ 16-8-120, 8A C.R.S. (1986). The jury verdict determines whether the defendant is eligible for release.”
People v. Giles, 557 P.2d 408 (Colo. 1976).
· cites it 9× “1 The statutory test for release or conditional release, after a commitment which results from a successful insanity plea, requires a finding that the defendant “has no abnormal mental condition which would be likely to cause him to be dangerous either to himself or to others or…”
People v. Stevens, 761 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1988).
· cites it 10× “Stevens nevertheless argues that the term “danger” in sections 27-10-107, -109, and -111 offends due process by creating a danger of arbitrary enforcement.”
People v. Parrish, 879 P.2d 453 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 9× “In March 1992, defendant filed a request for a hearing to consider his release from the state hospital pursuant to § 16-8-120, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A). A committee of doctors conducted a release examination of the defendant prior to the hearing on his motion.”
People v. Howell, 586 P.2d 27 (Colo. 1978).
· cites it 6× “Rather he contends that the standard set forth in section 16-8-120, C.R.S. 1973, for determining eligibility for conditional release is unconstitutionally vague and ambiguous.”
Cordova v. People, 817 P.2d 66 (Colo. 1991).
· cites it 6× “A defendant committed as a result of an insanity adjudication is not eligible for release or conditional release from the commitment unless and until the court is satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that "the defendant has no abnormal mental condition which would be…”
People v. Jones, 935 P.2d 28 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 42× “Louisiana, supra , and upheld the constitutionality of § 16-8-120(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A), against an attack based upon Foucha .”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-120(1) — 11 cases
People v. Riggs, 87 P.3d 109 (Colo. 2004).
“§ 16-8-120(1). Largely because of this presumptive continuation of a state of mental incapacity and danger to the public, imposing a burden on insanity acquittees to prove their eligibility for release has been upheld as justified under certain circumstances.”
People v. Chavez, 629 P.2d 1040 (Colo. 1981).
“Section 16-8-120(1), C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.”
Vialpando v. People, 727 P.2d 1090 (Colo. 1986).
“§ 16-8-120, 8A C.R.S. (1986). The jury verdict determines whether the defendant is eligible for release.”
People v. Stevens, 761 P.2d 768 (Colo. 1988).
“Stevens nevertheless argues that the term “danger” in sections 27-10-107, -109, and -111 offends due process by creating a danger of arbitrary enforcement.”
Marshall v. Kort, 690 P.2d 219 (Colo. 1984).
“In discharging the writ of habeas corpus, the court concluded that, having been committed under the Criminal Code, petitioner could be released from custody only when he met the statutory criteria specified in section 16-8-120.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-120(3) — 5 cases
People v. Garlotte, 958 P.2d 469 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).
“(emphasis added) On August 23, 1990, the trial court granted the State Hospital's request to place defendant on conditional release pursuant to § 16-8-120, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A), incorporating a recommendation of the Chief Officer of the Colorado State Hospital dated July…”
Marshall v. Kort, 690 P.2d 219 (Colo. 1984).
“In discharging the writ of habeas corpus, the court concluded that, having been committed under the Criminal Code, petitioner could be released from custody only when he met the statutory criteria specified in section 16-8-120.”
Cordova v. People, 817 P.2d 66 (Colo. 1991).
“A defendant committed as a result of an insanity adjudication is not eligible for release or conditional release from the commitment unless and until the court is satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that "the defendant has no abnormal mental condition which would be…”
People v. Jones, 935 P.2d 28 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
“Louisiana, supra , and upheld the constitutionality of § 16-8-120(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A), against an attack based upon Foucha .”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-120(4) — 3 cases
Cordova v. People, 817 P.2d 66 (Colo. 1991).
“A defendant committed as a result of an insanity adjudication is not eligible for release or conditional release from the commitment unless and until the court is satisfied by a preponderance of the evidence that "the defendant has no abnormal mental condition which would be…”
People v. Jones, 935 P.2d 28 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).
“Louisiana, supra , and upheld the constitutionality of § 16-8-120(1), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8A), against an attack based upon Foucha .”
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.