CO Code § 16-8-102 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 16 - Criminal Proceedings|Article 8 - Insanity - Release|Part 1 - General Provisions|§ 16-8-102. Other Definitions

 As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:    and (2) Repealed. (2.5) “Forensic psychologist” means a licensed psychologist who is board certified in forensic psychology by the American board of professional psychology or who has completed a fellowship in forensic psychology meeting criteria established by the American board of forensic psychology. (2.7)   “Impaired mental condition” means a condition of mind, caused by mental disease or defect that prevents the person from forming the culpable mental state that is an essential element of any crime charged. For the purposes of this subsection (2.7), “mental disease or defect” includes only those severely abnormal mental conditions which grossly and demonstrably impair a person's perception or understanding of reality and which are not attributable to the voluntary ingestion of alcohol or any other psychoactive substance; except that it does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.    This subsection (2.7) shall apply only to offenses committed before July 1, 1995.  (4.5) “Ineligible to remain on conditional release” means the defendant has violated one or more conditions in his release, or the defendant is suffering from a mental disease or defect which is likely to cause him to be dangerous to himself, to others, or to the community in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he is permitted to remain on conditional release.  (4.7) “Mental disease or defect” means only those severely abnormal mental conditions that grossly and demonstrably impair a person's perception or understanding of reality and that are not attributable to the voluntary ingestion of alcohol or any other psychoactive substance; except that it does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.         (3) Repealed.   (4) “Ineligible for release” means the defendant is suffering from a mental disease or defect which is likely to cause him to be dangerous to himself, to others, or to the community, in the reasonably foreseeable future, if he is permitted to remain at liberty.   (5) “Release examination” means a court-ordered examination of a defendant directed to developing evidence relevant to determining whether he is eligible for release.   (6) “Release hearing” means a hearing for the purpose of determining whether a defendant previously committed to the department of human services, following a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, has become eligible for release.   (7) Repealed.   (8) “Sanity examination” means a court-ordered examination of a defendant who has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, directed to developing information relevant to determining the sanity or insanity of the defendant at the time of the commission of the act with which he is charged and also his competency to proceed.   History. Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 225, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-8-102 . L. 81: (4.5) added, p. 932, § 1, effective July 1. L. 83: (2.7) added, p. 672, § 2, effective July 1. L. 94: (6) amended, p. 2647, § 116, effective July 1. L. 95: (2.7) amended and (4.7) added, p. 72, § 3, effective July 1. L. 2008: (1), (2), (3), and (7) repealed, p. 1850, § 3, effective July 1. L. 2013: (2.5) added,(SB 13-116), ch. 115, p. 393, § 1, effective August 7.    Cross references:   For the legislative declaration contained in the 1994 act amending subsection (6), see section 1 of chapter 345, Session Laws of Colorado 1994. For the legislative declaration contained in the 2008 act repealing subsections (1), (2), (3), and (7), see section 1 of chapter 389, Session Laws of Colorado 2008.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Incompetency and the Problem of Ganser's Syndrome”, see 22 Colo. Law 1897 (1993).   The primary purpose of the competency hearing is to ascertain whether he has sufficient mental capacity to know the nature of the charge and to cooperate with his counsel in his defense. Parks v. Denver District Court, 180 Colo. 202 , 503 P.2d 1029 (1972).   It is a separate hearing tried by different standard. A criminal defendant who raises the sanity issue is constitutionally entitled to a separate hearing to determine his competence to stand trial because a different standard determines competence to stand trial from that which determines the validity of a defense of not guilty by reason of insanity. Parks v. Denver District Court, 180 Colo. 202 , 503 P.2d 1029 (1972).   Where the expert witness testified that the defendant had done “quite well” on a competency assessment that addressed whether the defendant had a realistic appreciation of the charges against him and the consequences of those charges and whether the defendant could work effectively with his counsel, the trial court's finding of competency was adequately supported and could not be set aside. People v. Tally, 7 P.3d 172 (Colo. App. 1999).   “Culpable mental state” as used in the definition of “impaired mental condition” speaks to mental condition not state of mind. People v. Fincham, 799 P.2d 419 (Colo. App. 1990).   No finding of dangerousness is necessary to hold defendant ineligible to remain on conditional release if defendant has violated one or more conditions of release. Conditions of release are presumably imposed to eliminate or reduce the risk of future dangerous conduct by the defendant. People v. McCoy, 821 P.2d 873 (Colo. App. 1991).   The condition violated must bear a substantial relationship to the prevention of recurring mental illness or the management of an insanity acquittee's existing mental illness, and to the prevention of future dangerous behavior arising from the mental illness. If defendant has violated such a condition, the court may revoke the conditional release without infringing upon due process. People v. Garlotte, 958 P.2d 469 (Colo. App. 1997).   The distinction between insanity and incompetency must be sharply drawn. Incompetency merely abates the action and is procedural in effect, while insanity is substantive and renders the defendant not guilty. People v. Gillings, 39 Colo. App. 387, 568 P.2d 92 (1977).   Insane persons are, under the law, not necessarily incompetent to stand trial because of the fact of their insanity, while, in contrast, an incompetent defendant may not be tried. People v. Gillings, 39 Colo. App. 387, 568 P.2d 92 (1977).   Although a person may be both insane and incompetent, likewise, one may be insane and yet competent to stand trial. People v. Gillings, 39 Colo. App. 387, 568 P.2d 92 (1977).   Involuntary intoxication and insanity are legally separate and distinct defenses with significantly distinct consequences. People v. Garcia, 113 P.3d 775 (Colo. 2005).   Defendant's failure to plead the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition did not bar expert testimony that defendant focused on only one thing at a time. The defendant did not suffer from mental disease or defect. The condition was not “severely abnormal”. And the condition did not grossly and demonstrably impair the defendant's perception of reality, where defendant did not claim he was unable to recognize or understand the reality of the situation he was in, but instead, as he did not process information quickly, did not notice it. People v. Requejo, 919 P.2d 874 (Colo. App. 1996).   Applied in Jones v. District Court, 617 P.2d 803 (Colo. 1980); People v. Chavez, 629 P.2d 1040 (Colo. 1981); People v. Mack, 638 P.2d 257 (Colo. 1981); People v. Hall, 697 P.2d 746 (Colo. App. 1984); People v. Karpierz, 165 P.3d 753 (Colo. App. 2006).