CO Code § 16-8-105.5 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 16 - Criminal Proceedings|Article 8 - Insanity - Release|Part 1 - General Provisions|§ 16-8-105.5. Procedure After Plea for Offenses Committed on or After July 1, 1995

  When a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is accepted, the court shall forthwith commit the defendant for a sanity examination, specifying the place and period of commitment.    Upon receiving the report of the sanity examination, the court shall immediately set the case for trial. Every person is presumed to be sane; but, once any evidence of insanity is introduced, the people have the burden of proving sanity beyond a reasonable doubt.    When the affirmative defense of not guilty by reason of insanity has been raised, the jury shall be given special verdict forms containing interrogatories. The trier of fact shall decide first the question of guilt as to felony charges that are before the court. If the trier of fact concludes that guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt as to one or more of the felony charges submitted for consideration, the special interrogatories shall not be answered. Upon completion of its deliberations on the felony charges as previously set forth in this subsection (3), the trier of fact shall consider any other charges before the court in a similar manner; except that it shall not answer the special interrogatories regarding such charges if it has previously found guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to one or more felony charges. The interrogatories shall provide for specific findings of the jury with respect to the affirmative defense of not guilty by reason of insanity. When the court sits as the trier of fact, it shall enter appropriate specific findings with respect to the affirmative defense of not guilty by reason of insanity.    If the trier of fact finds the defendant not guilty by reason of insanity, 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. The executive director of the department of human services shall designate the state facility at which the defendant shall be held for care and psychiatric treatment and may transfer the defendant from one facility to another if in the opinion of the director it is desirable to do so in the interest of the proper care, custody, and treatment of the defendant or the protection of the public or the personnel of the facilities in question.    This section shall apply to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1995.     History. Source: L. 96: Entire section added, p. 4, § 1, effective January 31.    ANNOTATION   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).   Error to instruct jury that if defendant was found guilty on any offense he could not be found not guilty by reason of insanity on any other offense. However, under the circumstances, defendant is not entitled to relief on that basis. People v. Bielecki, 964 P.2d 598 (Colo. App. 1998).   Court may determine good cause has been shown adequate to order additional examination on the issue of sanity if prior experts' opinions were incomplete and a potentially new and significant diagnosis had been proposed that could dramatically affect the outcome of the assessment of defendant's behavior. People v. Grant, 174 P.3d 798 (Colo. App. 2007).   Prosecution not required to prove defendant's sanity beyond a reasonable doubt if, prior to the presentation of defendant's case, no evidence had been presented that the defendant's mental condition was unconnected to drug use. To dispel the presumption of sanity, the evidence must tend to establish each of the elements of the insanity defense. People v. Grant, 174 P.3d 798 (Colo. App. 2007).