Colorado § 16-8-104 - Separate trial of issues.

§ 16-8-104. Separate trial of issues.

The issues raised by the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity must be tried separately to different juries, and the sanity of the defendant must be tried first. This section applies to offenses committed before July 1, 1995.

Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 226, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-8-104. L. 95: Entire section amended, p. 74, § 8, effective July 1. L. 2025: Entire section amended, (HB 25-1058), ch. 15, p. 44, § 8, effective August 6.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "The Mental State of Defendants in Criminal Trials — A Comparison of some Colorado and Massachusetts Procedures", see 14 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 21 (1941). For note, "Trial Procedure in Colorado Under the 1951 Amendment Relating to Insanity in Criminal Cases", see 24 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 223 (1952). For comment on People ex rel. Juhan v. District Court, see 40 U. Colo. L. Rev. 626 (1968).

Annotator's note. Since § 16-8-104 is similar to repealed § 39-8-3, C.R.S. 1963, § 39-8-3, CRS 53, and CSA, C. 48, § 509, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

Legislative intent. By enactment of this section, the general assembly intended that the issues of guilt and legal accountability be completely separated for trial purposes. People v. King, 181 Colo. 439, 510 P.2d 333 (1973); People v. Morgan, 637 P.2d 338 (Colo. 1981).

This section relates to the order of trial of issues raised by the separate and distinct pleas which may be entered by an accused. Martin v. District Court, 129 Colo. 27, 272 P.2d 648 (1954).

This section provides for the order of trial of an offense where an insanity plea is joined with other pleas. Leick v. People, 136 Colo. 535, 322 P.2d 674 (1958).

A separation of the issues for trial does not deny due process of law. Leick v. People, 131 Colo. 353, 281 P.2d 806 (1955).

Or other constitutional rights. The right to a trial by a jury of 12, the right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury, due process, and other constitutional rights are not violated because the trial of the issues separately results in one trial. Leick v. People, 136 Colo. 535, 322 P.2d 674 (1958).

Purpose of separate trials. Separate trials of the issues of guilt and of mental condition are provided to safeguard, as far as possible, against the prejudice likely to arise in the minds of a jury trying both the issue of guilt and of mental condition by reason of the wide variety of evidence which might be competent on the issue of insanity and which would not be admissible upon trial of the not guilty plea. Trujillo v. People, 150 Colo. 235, 372 P.2d 86 (1962).

The bifurcated trial was designed to eliminate many constitutional challenges where the issues of insanity and guilt were resolved in the unitary trial. Lewis v. Thulemeyer, 189 Colo. 139, 538 P.2d 441 (1975).

Purpose of sanity trial limited. A sanity trial is designed to determine whether the defendant was sane or insane at the time of the alleged offense, and the issue of guilt or innocence plays no part in the resolution of this issue. People v. Morgan, 637 P.2d 338 (Colo. 1981).

Separate trials utilize separate juries. In Colorado there are two separate and distinct trials, utilizing two separate and distinct juries, whenever the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is raised. Lewis v. People, 174 Colo. 334, 483 P.2d 949 (1971).

In a proceeding under this section, if the cause is set for trial to the jury on the issue of insanity only, and the defendant is found sane, then the defendant shall be tried on the issue of guilt at a later time to a different jury. People v. Kernanen, 178 Colo. 234, 497 P.2d 8 (1972).

Which constitute but one trial. This section provides for disposition of a plea of insanity in a criminal case before trial of the issue of not guilty; although such issues are tried separately, they constitute but one trial. Leick v. People, 136 Colo. 535, 322 P.2d 674 (1958).

Under the procedure permitting a disposition of the insanity issue before the issue of not guilty, the trial is conducted in sections which together constitute one trial. The action is single. People ex rel. Juhan v. District Court, 165 Colo. 253, 439 P.2d 741 (1968).

And a single judgment to the charge results. Where there is but a single charge to which a defendant pleads not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the commission of the offense and the further plea of not guilty, and the issues so raised are tried separately, a single judgment only could be entered. Leick v. People, 136 Colo. 535, 322 P.2d 674 (1958).

Procedure does not make trial a civil case. The fact that the issue of insanity defense has been separated from other questions for the purpose of trial does not make a civil case out of that which is tendered as a defense to an accusation of crime. Castro v. People, 140 Colo. 493, 346 P.2d 1020 (1959); People ex rel. Juhan v. District Court, 165 Colo. 253, 439 P.2d 741 (1968).

However, in the sanity trial, defendant's testimony is not considered within the same constitutional guarantees as it is in the guilt trial. It is not error for the judge to not give a Curtis advisement concerning the right to testify and previous convictions. People v. Chou, 981 P.2d 668 (Colo. App. 1999).

And proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required of issues in separate trial. By procedurally requiring a separate trial on the issue of mental capacity to commit any crime — which admittedly is a necessary ingredient of any offense — the material ingredient set apart for separate trial shall be governed by all the firmly established doctrine that as to every necessary ingredient of the total crime there must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. People ex rel. Juhan v. District Court, 165 Colo. 253, 439 P.2d 741 (1968).

In Colorado, the sanity trial stands on the same footing with the trial on the other elements of the crime. Parks v. Denver District Court, 180 Colo. 202, 503 P.2d 1029 (1972).

In considering a motion for a directed verdict in a sanity trial under this section, the trial court must consider the evidence, together with reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the people, and, if there is substantial competent evidence to support a verdict in favor of the people, the motion must be denied and the matter submitted to the jury for determination. People v. King, 181 Colo. 439, 510 P.2d 333 (1973).

Defendant was not placed in double jeopardy on insanity issue. Where defendant, charged with homicide, moved for a separate trial on the sanity issue as provided by this section, he was not placed in double jeopardy where the trial court's direction of verdict of insanity was held erroneous and the defendant was retried on the sanity issue. People v. King, 181 Colo. 439, 510 P.2d 333 (1973).

Grant of new trial on sanity does not require new trial on merits. When a separate sanity trial has been held which results in an erroneous verdict requiring a new sanity trial, it is not necessary to also grant a new trial on the merits where there is no prejudicial error in the trial of the substantive charge. Young v. People, 175 Colo. 461, 488 P.2d 567 (1971); Lewis v. People, 174 Colo. 334, 483 P.2d 949 (1971).

Admission of psychiatric report on sanity but not guilt issues. The general assembly, in providing for the admission in evidence of defendant's statements to the psychiatrist where sanity is the issue, but barring them on the guilt issue, does not violate the defendant's rights against self-incrimination. Lewis v. Thulemeyer, 189 Colo. 139, 538 P.2d 441 (1975).

The use of the confessions or admissions of the defendant in the decisional process by the psychiatrist in forming an opinion as to the sanity or insanity of the defendant does not aid in the proof of guilt, but is limited to the issue of sanity. Lewis v. Thulemeyer, 189 Colo. 139, 538 P.2d 441 (1975).

No self-incrimination. When the sanity issue is a separate proceeding, as it is in Colorado, before a jury that cannot consider the issue of guilt in the event the defendant is found sane and where the admissions cannot be used to establish guilt, there is no self-incrimination within the contemplation of the constitutional provisions. Lewis v. Thulemeyer, 189 Colo. 139, 538 P.2d 441 (1975).

Joinder of a charge of forcible rape with an unrelated deviate sexual intercourse charge committed on a different female on a different date for purposes of trial on the sanity issue was not error. People v. Renfrow, 193 Colo. 131, 564 P.2d 411 (1977).

Sanity trial jury not instructed on substantive elements. A trial court is correct to refuse to instruct the jury at a sanity trial on the elements and culpable mental states of the substantive offenses with which the defendant is charged. People v. Morgan, 637 P.2d 338 (Colo. 1981).

Motion for new trial after trial on merits preserves for appeal errors alleged in sanity trial because the judgment declaring the defendant sane is not final for appeal purposes until defendant is found guilty of the crime charged. People v. Osborn, 42 Colo. App. 376, 599 P.2d 937 (1979).

Applied in People v. Pearson, 190 Colo. 313, 546 P.2d 1259 (1976); Labor v. Gibson, 195 Colo. 416, 578 P.2d 1059 (1978); People v. Roark, 643 P.2d 756 (Colo. 1982); People v. Serravo, 823 P.2d 128 (Colo. 1992).