reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
CO Code § 16-7-203 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 16 - Criminal Proceedings|Article 7 - Separate Trial - Arraignment - Plea Agreements - Deferred Prosecution and Deferred Sentencing|Part 2 - Arraignment|§ 16-7-203. Irregularity of Arraignment

 No irregularity in the arraignment which does not affect the substantial rights of the defendant shall affect the validity of any proceeding in the cause if the defendant pleads to the charge or proceeds to trial without objecting to the irregularity.   History. Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 221, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-7-203 .    ANNOTATION   Arraignment procedures are designed primarily to protect the defendant. Harrington v. District Court, 192 Colo. 351 , 559 P.2d 225 (1977).   Representation by nonresident counsel does not nullify arraignment. Where an attorney from a sister state is admitted to the bar of Colorado for the purpose of representing a defendant in a trial for murder in the first degree, the fact that such counsel does not have an associate resident counsel with him in the case does not nullify the arraignment of defendant or his plea of not guilty. Martinez v. People, 134 Colo. 82 , 299 P.2d 510 (1956) (decided under repealed § 39-7-9 , CRS 53).   Elements of arraignment not ritual from which court cannot deviate. While the statutes and rules prescribe the necessary elements of an arraignment, this section makes it clear that they have not created a ritual from which a court cannot deviate. People v. Adargo, 622 P.2d 593 (Colo. App. 1980).
CO Code § 16-7-204 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 16 - Criminal Proceedings|Article 7 - Separate Trial - Arraignment - Plea Agreements - Deferred Prosecution and Deferred Sentencing|Part 2 - Arraignment|§ 16-7-204. Procedures on Arraignment

 The procedure to be followed upon arraignment shall be in compliance with the provisions of applicable rules of criminal procedure adopted by the supreme court of Colorado.   History. Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 221, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-7-204 .
CO Code § 16-7-207.5 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 16 - Criminal Proceedings|Article 7 - Separate Trial - Arraignment - Plea Agreements - Deferred Prosecution and Deferred Sentencing|Part 2 - Arraignment|§ 16-7-207.5. Court's Duty to Inform Defendants With Current or Prior Military Service on First Appearance in Court and on Pleas of Guilty

  At the first appearance of a defendant in court or upon arraignment, whichever is first in time, the court shall ascertain whether the defendant is serving in the United States armed forces or is a veteran of such forces. The court shall inform any such defendant that the defendant may be entitled to receive mental health treatment, substance use disorder treatment, or other services as a veteran. If the jurisdiction does not have a veterans treatment court, the court shall inform the defendant of the possibility of petitioning to transfer probation supervision after a plea or sentence in a case to a jurisdiction with a veterans treatment court pursuant to section 18-1.3-202.5.    The court shall not accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere without first determining whether the defendant is serving in the United States armed forces or is a veteran of such forces and, if so, informing the defendant as described in subsection (1) of this section.    This section applies to, but is not limited to, prosecutions for violations of municipal charters and prosecutions for violations of municipal ordinances, except for traffic infractions for which the penalty is only a fine and arrest is prohibited.     History. Source: L. 2018: Entire section added,(HB 18-1078), ch. 135, p. 889, § 1, effective August 8. L. 2021: (1) amended,(HB 21-1016), ch. 214, p. 1135, § 1, effective September 7.
CO Code § 16-7-208 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 16 - Criminal Proceedings|Article 7 - Separate Trial - Arraignment - Plea Agreements - Deferred Prosecution and Deferred Sentencing|Part 2 - Arraignment|§ 16-7-208. Failure or Refusal to Plead

 If a defendant refuses to plead, or if the court refuses to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of nolo contendere (no contest), or if a corporation fails to appear, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty. If for any reason a plea has not been entered, the case shall for all purposes be considered as one in which a plea of not guilty has been entered.   History. Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 223, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-7-208 .    ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. Since § 16-7-208 is similar to repealed § 39-7-9 , C.R.S. 1963, § 39-7-9 , CRS 53, and CSA, C. 48, § 483, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.   This section refers to an accused who refuses to respond and obstinately stands mute. Marler v. People, 139 Colo. 23 , 336 P.2d 101 (1959).   It has no application to a plea entered by counsel authorized to speak for an accused. Marler v. People, 139 Colo. 23 , 336 P.2d 101 (1959).   Court authorized to enter plea of not guilty only. Where defendant, on being arraigned, stood mute, the court was without authority to enter a plea of “not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the commission of the crime and since”. The only plea that the court, under the circumstances, could properly enter for defendant was a plea of “not guilty”. Boyd v. People, 108 Colo. 289 , 116 P.2d 193 (1941).   Proceedings valid where defendant did not object to omission of plea. Where defendant proceeded to trial without objection and contested the action as though a not guilty plea had been entered, and the fact that no such plea had been entered was not mentioned or called to the trial court's attention in the motion for a new trial, such omission did not render proceedings void and defendant is entitled to no relief by reason thereof. Landford v. People, 148 Colo. 300 , 365 P.2d 893 (1961), cert. denied, 369 U.S. 862, 82 S. Ct. 953, 8 L. Ed. 2d 20 (1962).   Where defendant proceeded to trial without objection and in all respects contested the case as though the “not guilty” plea had been entered, the defendant was not prejudiced by this procedural omission. The error or omission is called to the attention of the trial court by the appeal, and the entry of a plea of not guilty will suffice. Romero v. People, 170 Colo. 234 , 460 P.2d 784 (1969).
CO Code § 16-7-303 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 16 - Criminal Proceedings|Article 7 - Separate Trial - Arraignment - Plea Agreements - Deferred Prosecution and Deferred Sentencing|Part 3 - Plea Discussions and Plea Agreements|§ 16-7-303. Fact of Discussion and Agreement Not Admissible

 Except as to proceedings resulting from a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) which is not withdrawn, the fact that the defendant or his defense counsel and the district attorney engaged in plea discussions or made a plea agreement shall not be received in evidence against or in favor of the defendant in any criminal or civil action or administrative proceeding.   History. Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 224, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-7-303 .    ANNOTATION   Hearing necessary prerequisite to admit statements made in conjunction with withdrawn plea. A defendant who challenges the voluntariness or reliability of statements made in the course of tendering a guilty plea which is subsequently withdrawn or rejected and is later sought to be used against him at trial for impeachment purposes is entitled to a hearing which provides the safeguards set forth in Jackson v. Denno, (378 U.S. 368, 84 S. Ct. 1774, 12 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1964)) before those statements may be used against him. People v. Cole, 195 Colo. 483 , 584 P.2d 71 (1978).   Where defendant's statements inadmissible. Where the defendant's statements were made in the course of plea negotiations, for the narrowly limited purpose of assisting the district attorney and the court in determining whether he was an appropriate candidate for deferred sentencing, and where, when the statements were elicited, it was contemplated by both sides that they would have no probative effect on the issue of guilt or innocence, for both parties then assumed that a guilty plea would be entered, when the defendant did withdraw from the plea negotiations, thus aborting the only purpose for which his inculpatory statements had been given, it was palpably unfair to allow the prosecution to use those statements against him for an entirely unintended purpose to prove his guilt. Gelfand v. People, 196 Colo. 487 , 586 P.2d 1331 (1978).   Where a trial court has accepted a defendant's plea agreement in which the prosecution and defendant have stipulated to imposition of concurrent sentences, the court is obligated under the plea agreement either to impose only concurrent periods of incarceration or to grant only concurrent periods of probation. People v. Flenniken, 720 P.2d 617 (Colo. App. 1986), rev'd on other grounds, 749 P.2d 395 (Colo. 1988).   Application of CRE 410, when read in light of Crim. P. 11 (e)(6) and this section, requires the exclusion of evidence of statements made by defendant during plea bargaining process only in regard to plea discussions with the attorney for the government. People v. Rollins, 759 P.2d 816 (Colo. App. 1988).
CO Code § 16-7-304 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 16 - Criminal Proceedings|Article 7 - Separate Trial - Arraignment - Plea Agreements - Deferred Prosecution and Deferred Sentencing|Part 3 - Plea Discussions and Plea Agreements|§ 16-7-304. Charges for Bad Checks

 The department or agency supervising the collection of restitution agreed to as a condition of a plea agreement, including dismissal of a charge, may assess a charge of fifteen dollars to a defendant for collection of each bad check or each bad check received as a restitution payment. For the purposes of this section, “bad check” means a check or similar sight order for the payment of money which is dishonored by the bank or other drawee because the issuer does not have sufficient funds upon deposit with the bank or other drawee to pay the check or order upon presentation within thirty days after issue.   History. Source: L. 84: Entire section added, p. 488, § 1, effective July 1. L. 87: Entire section amended, p. 620, § 1, effective July 1.    Cross references:   For charges for bad checks received as a restitution payment ordered as a condition of a deferred prosecution or deferred sentence, see § 16-7-404 ; for assessment of a penalty for a dishonored check presented as a payment for restitution, see § 16-18.5-108 .
CO Code § 16-7-404 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 16 - Criminal Proceedings|Article 7 - Separate Trial - Arraignment - Plea Agreements - Deferred Prosecution and Deferred Sentencing|Part 4 - Deferred Prosecution and Deferred Sentencing|§ 16-7-404. Charges for Bad Checks

 The department or agency supervising the collection of restitution ordered as a condition of a deferred prosecution or deferred sentence pursuant to this part 4 may assess a charge of fifteen dollars to a defendant for collection of each bad check or each bad check received as a restitution payment. For the purposes of this section, “bad check” means a check or similar sight order for the payment of money which is dishonored by the bank or other drawee because the issuer does not have sufficient funds upon deposit with the bank or other drawee to pay the check or order upon presentation within thirty days after issue.   History. Source: L. 84: Entire section added, p. 488, § 2, effective July 1. L. 87: Entire section amended, p. 620, § 2, effective July 1.    Cross references:   For charges for bad checks received as a restitution payment ordered as a condition of a plea agreement, see § 16-7-304 ; for assessment of a penalty for a dishonored check presented as a payment for restitution, see § 16-18.5-108 .
CO Code § 16-8-101.3 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 16 - Criminal Proceedings|Article 8 - Insanity - Release|Part 1 - General Provisions|§ 16-8-101.3. Legislative Intent in Enacting Section 16-8-101.5 and in Making Conforming Amendments

 The intent of the general assembly in enacting section 16-8-101 .5 and making conforming amendments to sections 16-8-101 to 16-8-104 , 16-8-106 , 16-8-110 , 16-8-114 , 16-8-115 , and 16-8-120 in 1995, and in enacting clarifying provisions in this section and sections .5 and .5 and making conforming amendments to sections 16-8-105 and 16-8-107 and sections 18-1-802 and 18-1-803 , C.R.S., in 1996, was to combine the defense of not guilty by reason of insanity and the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition into the affirmative defense of not guilty by reason of insanity and to create a unitary process for hearing the issues raised by said affirmative defense to apply to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1995.   History. Source: L. 96: Entire section added, p. 3, § 1, effective January 31.
CO Code § 16-8-103.7 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 16 - Criminal Proceedings|Article 8 - Insanity - Release|Part 1 - General Provisions|§ 16-8-103.7. Examination After Entry of Defenses of Insanity and Impaired Mental Condition

     When, at the time of arraignment, the defense of insanity is raised, pursuant to section 16-8-103, and the defendant asserts his or her intention to raise the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition, pursuant to section 16-8-103.5, the court shall order one examination of the defendant with regard to both defenses pursuant to section 16-8-106.    This subsection (1) shall apply only to offenses committed before July 1, 1995.         When, at the time of arraignment, the defense of insanity is raised pursuant to section 16-8-103, the court shall order an examination of the defendant with regard to the insanity defense pursuant to section 16-8-106.    This subsection (2) shall apply to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1995.         When the defendant gives notice pursuant to section 16-8-107 (3) that he or she intends to introduce evidence in the nature of expert opinion concerning his or her mental condition, the court shall order an examination of the defendant pursuant to section 16-8-106.    The provisions of this subsection (3) shall apply to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1999.        History. Source: L. 83: Entire section added, p. 673, § 3, effective July 1. L. 95: Entire section amended, p. 74, § 7, effective July 1. L. 99: (3) added, p. 404, § 6, effective July 1.
CO Code § 16-8-104.5 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 16 - Criminal Proceedings|Article 8 - Insanity - Release|Part 1 - General Provisions|§ 16-8-104.5. Single Trial of Issues

  The issues raised by the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity shall be treated as an affirmative defense and shall be tried at the same proceeding and before the same trier of fact as the charges to which not guilty by reason of insanity is offered as a defense.    This section shall apply to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1995.     History. Source: L. 96: Entire section added, p. 3, § 1, effective January 31.    ANNOTATION   Unitary trial provisions did not violate defendant's right against self-incrimination and his rights to due process and a fair trial. Jury was instructed that evidence concerning defendant's statements during his sanity examination was to be considered only to determine whether defendant had the capacity to form or did form the requisite culpable mental state and for no other purpose. Where there is nothing in the record to suggest the contrary, the jury is presumed to have followed the instruction. People v. Bielecki, 964 P.2d 598 (Colo. App. 1998).   Jury instructions based on § 16-8-107 are sufficient to protect a defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. Absent evidence to the contrary, courts presume jurors understand and heed jury instructions. People v. Marko, 2015 COA 139 , 434 P.3d 618, aff'd, 2018 CO 97, 432 P.3d 607.   Unitary trial procedures did not violate defendant's rights to due process and a fair trial on the grounds he was deprived of the presumption of innocence. Jury was properly instructed on the presumption of innocence, and there is nothing in the record to indicate that it disregarded those instructions. People v. Bielecki, 964 P.2d 598 (Colo. App. 1998).   Under unitary trial provision, defendant does not possess a statutory right to a jury trial on the merits and the affirmative defense of insanity if a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity was entered and stipulated to by the prosecution. People v. Laeke, 2012 CO 13M, 271 P.3d 1111, cert. denied, 568 U.S. 829, 133 S. Ct. 109, 184 L. Ed. 2d 51 (2012).
CO Code § 16-8-114 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 16 - Criminal Proceedings|Article 8 - Insanity - Release|Part 1 - General Provisions|§ 16-8-114. Evidence Concerning Competency - Inadmissibility

     (Deleted by amendment,L. 2008, p. 1857, § 11, effective July 1, 2008.)      shall apply only to offenses committed before July 1, 1995.    Evidence of any determination as to the defendant's competency or incompetency is not admissible on the issues raised by the pleas of not guilty or not guilty by reason of insanity. This paragraph (b) shall apply to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1995.         History. Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 230, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-8-114 . L. 79: (1) amended, p. 670, § 19, effective July 1. L. 83: (3) amended, p. 675, § 7, effective July 1. L. 95: (3) amended, p. 77, § 11, effective July 1. L. 2008: Entire section amended, p. 1857, § 11, effective July 1.    Cross references:   For the legislative declaration contained in the 2008 act amending this section, see section 1 of chapter 389, Session Laws of Colorado 2008.   ANNOTATION   Annotator's note. Since § 16-8-114 is similar to repealed § 39-8-6 , C.R.S. 1963, and § 39-8-6 , CRS 53, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.   Recovery removes the statutory impediment, and the regular course of the law takes up at the point where the incompetency arose. Leick v. People, 136 Colo. 535 , 322 P.2d 674, cert. denied, 357 U.S. 922, 78 S. Ct. 1363, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1366 (1958).   If a defendant who is incompetent to stand trial later regains his sanity, he must face trial on the merits. Parks v. Denver District Court, 180 Colo. 202 , 503 P.2d 1029 (1972).   Return to sanity requires new preliminary hearing. When the preliminary hearing is held first and the competency hearing second, if the outcome of the competency hearing is that the defendant is presently insane, then upon his return to competency another preliminary hearing must be held. Schwader v. District Court, 172 Colo. 474 , 474 P.2d 607 (1970).   Section limits admissibility of results of examination in trial on guilt. The statutory limitation on the use at the trial of the issue of guilt or innocence of any substantive evidence or information acquired directly or indirectly for the first time as the result of examination of accused applies to an examination in connection with a plea of insanity at the time or an allegation of incompetency after the alleged commission of the crime. Nowels v. People, 166 Colo. 140 , 442 P.2d 410 (1968).   Applied in People v. Chavez, 629 P.2d 1040 (Colo. 1981).
CO Code § 16-8-116 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 16 - Criminal Proceedings|Article 8 - Insanity - Release|Part 1 - General Provisions|§ 16-8-116. Release by Hospital Authority

  When the chief officer of the institution in which a defendant has been committed after a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity determines that the defendant no longer requires hospitalization because he no longer suffers 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, such chief officer shall report this determination to the court that committed the defendant and the prosecuting attorney, including in the report a report of examination equivalent to a release examination. The clerk of the court shall forthwith furnish a copy of the report to counsel for the defendant.    Within thirty-five days after receiving the report of the chief officer of the institution having custody of the defendant, the court shall set a hearing on the discharge of the defendant in accordance with section 16-8-115, whether or not such report is contested.    Repealed.     History. Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 231, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-8-116 . L. 83: (1) and (2) amended and (3) repealed, pp. 680, 681, §§ 2, 5, effective July 1. L. 86: (1) amended, p. 733, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2012: (2) amended,(SB 12-175), ch. 208, p. 851, § 78, effective July 1.    ANNOTATION   This section, read in conjunction with §§ 16-8-115 and 16-8-117 , entitles a defendant to a release hearing to be held by the court, or, on demand by the defendant, to a jury not to exceed six persons. This hearing is mandated for a defendant committed after a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, whether or not eligibility for release is contested. People v. Lowe, 967 P.2d 177 (Colo. App. 1998).   No broad right of discovery in release proceedings. Based on this section and §§ 16-8-115 and 16-8-117 and on the special nonadversary nature of a release inquiry, the participants in release proceedings do not have the broad right of discovery as provided in the rules of civil procedure. People v. District Court, 192 Colo. 225 , 557 P.2d 414 (1976).   Subsections (1) and (2) indicate legislative intent to vest the committing court with continuing subject matter jurisdiction to determine questions relating to the treatment needs of a committed defendant. People v. Gilliland, 769 P.2d 477 (Colo. 1989).   The weight and credence given to testimony of expert clinical psychologist at hearing concerning release under this section is for the jury. People v. Lyles, 186 Colo. 302 , 526 P.2d 1332 (1974).   For purposes of determining eligibility for release, the terms “mental disease or defect”, as used in this section, and “abnormal mental condition”, as used in § 16-8-120 , are equivalent. People v. Parrish, 879 P.2d 453 (Colo. App. 1994); Parrish v. State of Colo., 78 F.3d 1473 (10th Cir. 1996).   Applied in People v. Chavez, 629 P.2d 1040 (Colo. 1981); People v. Benns, 641 P.2d 298 (Colo. App. 1981); People v. Lopez, 640 P.2d 275 (Colo. App. 1982).