Opinion ID: 1148775
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conditional release evidence and verdict form

Text: The defendant claims the court erred in prohibiting him from questioning witnesses regarding treatment which would be available if a conditional release were granted and in refusing a tendered verdict form which would have allowed the jury to find the defendant eligible for conditional release. Where the trier of fact finds the defendant eligible for release, the statute empowers the court to impose such terms and conditions on release as it determines are in the best interests of the defendant and the community, and the jury shall be so instructed. Section 16-8-115(3), C.R.S. 1973. [8] The trial court did instruct the jury that if it found the defendant eligible for release, the Court may impose upon the defendant such terms and conditions as the Court may determine are in the best interests of the defendant and of the community. However, in the same instruction, the court told the jury that if the defendant violated any terms and conditions the court might impose, the court had no authority to send him back to the State Hospital. [9] It is clear from the statute that the jury's function ends with its determination whether or not the defendant is eligible for release. The decision whether to impose conditions on release is solely for the court. Obviously, where conditional release is appropriate, the terms and conditions must be tailor-made by the court to fit the individual case. It is the court, not the jury, which has the necessary experience and knowledge of available alternatives to perform this function. While the entire instruction on the subject of conditional release was superfluous, giving it did not constitute prejudicial error.