Opinion ID: 2619620
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: I-The Sanity Trial

Text: At the jury trial on the sanity issue, the trial court instructed the jury that the people have the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was sane at the time of the alleged commission of the offense    This instruction adhered to the statutory requirement of C.R.S.1963, 39-8-1, as amended by Chapter 125, Laws of 1965. Defendant alleges that this instruction permitting the prosecution to establish defendant's sanity merely by a preponderance of the evidence was prejudicial, and that the statute upon which it was based was an unconstitutional deprivation of due process of law. The People have confessed error in this regard. We agree that this instruction constituted prejudicial error. In People ex rel. Juhan v. District Court for the County of Jefferson, Colo., 439 P.2d 741 (decided after the trial in the instant case), this court specifically held that Chapter 125, Laws of 1965, insofar as it permitted the People to establish an accused's sanity by a preponderance of the evidence was a denial of due process of law and thereby unconstitutional.