Colorado § 16-8-103.5 - Impaired mental condition - when raised - procedure - legislative intent.

§ 16-8-103.5. Impaired mental condition - when raised - procedure - legislative intent.

(1) If the defendant intends to assert the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition, the defendant shall indicate that intention to the court and to the prosecution at the time of arraignment; except that the court, for good cause shown, shall permit the defendant to inform the court and the prosecution of the defendant's intention to assert the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition at any time prior to trial.

(2) If counsel for the defendant believes that an assertion of the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition should be entered on behalf of the defendant but the defendant refuses to permit counsel to offer such evidence, counsel may inform the court. The court shall then conduct an investigation as it deems proper, which may include the appointment of psychiatrists or forensic psychologists to assist in examining the defendant and advising the court. After its investigation, the court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether evidence of impaired mental condition should be offered at trial. If the court finds that the defense of impaired mental condition is necessary for a just determination of the charge against the defendant, the court shall inform the prosecution that the defense must be asserted at trial by the defendant and shall order the defendant's counsel to present evidence at trial on the defense of impaired mental condition.

(3) At the time when the defendant announces the defendant's intention to assert the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition, the court shall advise the defendant of the effect and consequences of asserting the defense.

(4) When the defendant indicates the defendant's intention to assert the defense of impaired mental condition, the court shall order an examination of the defendant pursuant to section 16-8-106. The court shall order both the prosecutor and the defendant to exchange the names, addresses, reports, and statements of persons, other than medical experts subject to the provisions of section 16-8-103.6, whom the parties intend to call as witnesses with regard to the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition.

(5) If the trier of fact finds the defendant not guilty by reason of impaired mental condition pursuant to section 18-1-803 (3), the court shall commit the defendant to the custody of the department of human services until such time as the defendant is found eligible for release pursuant to the standards set forth in sections 16-8-115 and 16-8-120. The executive director of the department of human services shall designate the state facility where the defendant is held for care and psychiatric treatment and may transfer the defendant from one institution to another if, in the opinion of the executive director, transferring the defendant is desirable to do so in the interest of the defendant's proper care, custody, and treatment or the protection of the public or the personnel of the facilities in question.

(6) It is the intent of the general assembly that the assertion of the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition not be made in a manner that it is used to circumvent the requirements of disclosure specified in rule 16 of the Colorado rules of criminal procedure.

(7) A defendant may raise impaired mental condition only through an assertion of affirmative defense.

(8) This section applies to offenses committed before July 1, 1995.

Source: L. 83: Entire section added, p. 673, § 3, effective July 1. L. 85: (6) and (7) added, p. 625, § 1, effective June 6. L. 87: (4) amended, p. 622, § 2, effective July 1. L. 94: (5) amended, p. 2648, § 117, effective July 1. L. 95: (8) added, p. 73, § 5, effective July 1. L. 2013: (2) amended, (SB 13-116), ch. 115, p. 394, § 3, effective August 7. L. 2025: Entire section amended, (HB 25-1058), ch. 15, p. 41, § 5, effective August 6.

Cross references: (1) For affirmative defenses generally, see § 18-1-407.

(2) For the legislative declaration contained in the 1994 act amending subsection (5), see section 1 of chapter 345, Session Laws of Colorado 1994.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "Legislative Update", see 12 Colo. Law. 1251 (1983).

The plea of impaired mental condition must be raised at the arraignment of the defendant or such plea is waived. People v. Low, 732 P.2d 622 (Colo. 1987); People v. Fincham, 799 P.2d 419 (Colo. App. 1990).

The affirmative defense of impaired mental condition is separate and distinct from the defense of insanity; its sole effect is to negate the existence of an element of the crime charged. However, if a defendant intends to raise the defense of impaired mental condition at trial, he must also specially plead the defense at arraignment. People v. Bolton, 859 P.2d 311 (Colo. App. 1993).

Exclusion of impaired mental condition defense for noncompliance with discovery order by reason of prejudice to prosecution was not an abuse of discretion where defendant was examined six months prior to trial and at a time when he was represented by counsel, yet only declared his intention to use a defense of impaired mental condition just before trial, and no events occurred after non-compliance which mitigated prejudice to prosecution. People v. Reger, 731 P.2d 752 (Colo. App. 1986).

Testimony relating to an impaired mental condition defense may be excluded if the procedural requirements of this section and § 16-8-103.6 are not met. People v. Sandoval, 805 P.2d 1126 (Colo. App. 1990).

Admissible medical testimony relating to an impaired mental condition need not arise out an examination concerning precisely the issue of impaired mental condition. No such limitation is found in this section or § 16-8-103.6. People v. Sandoval, 805 P.2d 1126 (Colo. App. 1990).

"Just determination" inquiry or determination regarding imposition of a mental status defense over the objection of the defendant requires a balancing of the public's interest in not holding criminally liable a defendant lacking criminal responsibility and the defendant's interest in autonomously controlling the nature of person's defense. Under subsection (2) and § 16-8-103 (2) the court must consider not only the defendant's stated reasons for objecting to the mental status defenses at the time of arraignment—but also the defendant's state of mind at the time of the commission of the offense. Against this, the court must consider the defendant's reasons for attempting to forego assertion of the mental status defense by examining whether those reasons satisfy a "basic rationality" inquiry. Hendricks v. People, 10 P.3d 1231 (Colo. 2000).

Trial court must first consider the viability of the mental status defense that defense counsel requests the court to assert on behalf of the defendant. This requires the court to assess the mental state of the defendant at the time of the commission of the offense to determine whether there is substantial evidence that the defendant may not be guilty because of the defendant's mental status. Hendricks v. People, 10 P.3d 1231 (Colo. 2000).

Defendant's choice should be accorded substantial weight in evaluating whether imposition of a mental status defense results in a "just determination of the charge against the defendant". At the same time it is inappropriate to give weight to a defendant's choice if the choice is founded in the defendant's delusions or is otherwise devoid of a rational basis. To satisfy this inquiry the trial court must assess whether the defendant's reason for the decision has a plausible grounding in reality. Hendricks v. People, 10 P.3d 1231 (Colo. 2000).

A finding of competency to stand trial does not substitute for a finding of basic rationality. Hendricks v. People, 10 P.3d 1231 (Colo. 2000).

An individual's interest in autonomously controlling the nature of his or her defense, provided that interest is premised on a choice that satisfies the basic rationality test, will predominate over the broader interest of society unless pressing concerns mandate a contrary result. Hendricks v. People, 10 P.3d 1231 (Colo. 2000).