(1) (a) A person who is insane, as defined in section 16-8-101, C.R.S., is not responsible for his or her conduct defined as criminal. Insanity as a defense shall not be an issue in any prosecution unless it is raised by a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity as provided in section 16-8-103, C.R.S.
(b) This subsection (1) applies to offenses committed before July 1, 1995.
(2) (a) A person who is insane, as defined in section 16-8-101.5, C.R.S., is not responsible for his or her conduct defined as criminal. Insanity as a defense shall not be an issue in any prosecution unless it is raised by a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity as provided in section 16-8-103, C.R.S.
(b) This subsection (2) shall apply to offenses occurring on or after July 1, 1995.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 412, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-902. L. 72: p. 268, § 7. L. 96: Entire section amended, p. 5, § 4, effective January 31.
Cross references: (1) For pleading the defense of insanity, see Crim. P. 11(e).
(2) For the legislative intent of the 1996 amendments to this section, see §16-8-101.3.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases, 1981–1997 · leading case:
Bieber v. People, 856 P.2d 811 (Colo. 1993).
Bieber v. People, 856 P.2d 811 (Colo. 1993).
· cites it 10× “(2) Intoxication does not, in itself, constitute mental disease or defect within the meaning of section 18-1-802. (3) A person is not criminally responsible for his conduct if, by reason of intoxication that is not self-induced at the time he acts, he lacks capacity to conform…”
People v. Low, 732 P.2d 622 (Colo. 1987).
· cites it 4× “” 9 The General Assembly has classified insanity as an affirmative defense, sections 18-1-802, 18-1-805, 8B C.R.S. (1986), and has set forth rules for pleading the defense, sections 16-8-103(1), 8A C.”
People v. Chavez, 629 P.2d 1040 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 3× “8), as follows: “A person who is so diseased or defective in mind at the time of the commission of the act as to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with respect to that act, or being able so to distinguish, has suffered such an impairment of mind by disease or…”
People v. Gallegos, 628 P.2d 999 (Colo. 1981).
· cites it 6× “Section 18-1-802, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl. Vol.”
People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987).
· cites it 2× “The legislature has also provided in section 18-1-802, 8B C.R.S. (1986), that a person is *976 “not responsible for his conduct defined as criminal” if he is insane, and in section 18-1-804, 8B C.”
People v. Deason, 670 P.2d 792 (Colo. 1983).
· cites it 3× “” Section 18-1-802, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol.”
People v. Hill, 934 P.2d 821 (Colo. 1997).
· cites it 3× “See §§ 18-1-802 & 805, 8B C.R.S. (1986); People v.”
People v. Serravo, 823 P.2d 128 (Colo. 1992).
· cites it 2× “Const, amend. V; Colo. Const, art. II, § 18. In Colorado, while the issue of an accused’s sanity must be tried separately from the issue of guilt, § 16-8-104, 8A C.”
Blehm v. People, 817 P.2d 988 (Colo. 1991).
“Insanity is an affirmative defense to a criminal charge, § 18-1-802, 8B C.R.S. (1986), and “represents a judicial determination that an accused is not legally responsible for a past criminal act by reason of a mental disease or defect which existed at the time the act was…”
People v. Garlotte, 958 P.2d 469 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “Section 18-1-802, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B).”
People v. Wright, 648 P.2d 665 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 3× “The People called three psychiatrists, one neurologist, and one psychologist, all of whom concluded that the defendant was sane.”
People v. Giles, 662 P.2d 1073 (Colo. 1983).
· cites it 3× “” Section 18-1-802, C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.Vol.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-1-802(1) — 1 case
People v. Hill, 934 P.2d 821 (Colo. 1997).
“See §§ 18-1-802 & 805, 8B C.R.S. (1986); 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.