18-1-803. Impaired mental condition.
Statute text
(1) Evidence of an impaired mental condition, as defined in section 16-8-102 (2.7), C.R.S., though not legal insanity may be offered in a proper case as bearing upon the capacity of the accused to form the culpable mental state which is an element of the offense charged.
(2) An intention to assert the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition shall be made pursuant to section 16-8-103.5, C.R.S.
(3) When the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition has been raised, the jury will be given special verdict forms containing interrogatories. The trier of fact shall decide first the question of guilt as to felony charges which 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 impaired mental condition in accordance with the Colorado rules of criminal procedure. When the court sits as the trier of fact, it shall enter appropriate specific findings with respect to the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition. If the trier of fact finds that the defendant is not guilty by reason of the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition, the court shall commit the defendant to the department of human services pursuant to section 16-8-103.5 (5), C.R.S.
(4) This section shall apply to offenses committed before July 1, 1995.
History
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 412, 1. C.R.S. 1963: 40-1-903. L. 83: Entire section amended, p. 677, 11, effective July 1. L. 94: (3) amended, p. 2654, 136, effective July 1. L. 96: (4) added, p. 5, 5, effective January 31.
Annotations
Cross references: (1) For affirmative defenses generally, see 18-1-407, 18-1-710, and 18-1-805; for affirmative defenses to particular crimes, see specific criminal provisions in articles 2 to 18 of this title 18.
(2) For the legislative declaration contained in the 1994 act amending subsection (3), see section 1 of chapter 345, Session Laws of Colorado 1994.
Annotations
ANNOTATION
Annotations
Law reviews. For article, "Mens Rea and the Colorado Criminal Code", see 52 U. Colo. L. Rev. 167 (1981). For article, "Trauma, Crime and the Affirmative Defense", see 11 Colo. Law. 2401 (1982). For article, "Insanity Defense Reform", see 11 Colo. Law. 3006 (1982). For article, "Checklists to Evaluate Vietnam Vet Stress Disorders", see 12 Colo. Law. 273 (1983).
Limitation of defense to specific intent crimes constitutional. Former section which limited the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition to specific intent crimes was a reasonable exercise of legislative power and did not infringe upon a defendant's due process protections. People v. Morgan, 637 P.2d 338 (Colo. 1981).
Procedure for submitting defense of impaired mental condition to jury does not violate due process. This section does not prohibit the jury from considering the affirmative defense of impaired mental condition individually with respect to each charge, and instructions requiring such consideration are proper. People v. Collins, 752 P.2d 93 (Colo. 1988).
Former section was premised on the proposition that a mental disease or defect may be less than legal insanity but nonetheless sufficient to negate the requisite mens rea of specific intent. Hendershott v. People, 653 P.2d 385 (Colo. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1225, 103 S. Ct. 1232, 75 L. Ed. 2d 466 (1983).
No presumption of culpability nor derogation of due process rights. Former section neither created a presumption of culpability for general intent crimes nor derogated an accused's due process right to prosecutorial proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. People v. Gallegos, 628 P.2d 999 (Colo. 1981).
General assembly may establish statutory constituents of criminal culpability. The constitutional mandate requiring the prosecution to establish all essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt does not impair the general assembly's competence to establish the statutory constituents of criminal culpability for various offenses and to formulate particular rules of justification or excuse for acts that otherwise might be criminally punishable. People v. Ledman, 622 P.2d 534 (Colo. 1981) (decided under former section).
Evidence not restricted to specific intent crimes. Former section did not restrict evidence of impaired mental condition to specific intent crimes. Hendershott v. People, 653 P.2d 385 (Colo. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1225, 103 S. Ct. 1232, 75 L. Ed. 2d 466 (1983).
Mental impairment evidence is evidence of a mental disease or defect which affects the defendant's cognitive or volitional faculties to the point of rendering him incapable of entertaining the mens rea for the crime charged against him. Hendershott v. People, 653 P.2d 385 (Colo. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1225, 103 S. Ct. 1232, 75 L. Ed. 2d 466 (1983); People v. Aragon, 653 P.2d 715 (Colo. 1982) (decided under former section).
Issue of responsibility due to an impaired mental condition is an affirmative defense. People v. Ledman, 622 P.2d 534 (Colo. 1981).
Unless prosecution raises mental condition issue, defendant must present evidence. Unless the prosecution's evidence raises the issue involving the defendant's impaired mental condition, the defendant must present some credible evidence to raise it. People v. Ledman, 622 P.2d 534 (Colo. 1981) (decided under former section).
Former section did not require evidence of any psychiatric abnormality or independent testimony to analyze the effect of a blow on the defendant's mental state. People v. Delaney, 44 Colo. App. 366, 620 P.2d 44 (1980).
Once mental impairment is raised, prosecution must prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Once the issue of the defendant's impaired mental condition is raised, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the defendant as to that issue -- the defendant's capacity to form the requisite intent -- as well as all other elements of the offense. People v. Ledman, 622 P.2d 534 (Colo. 1981) (decided under former section).
Instruction on mental condition required if any evidence tends to establish impairment. An instruction on impaired mental condition is required if there is any evidence tending to establish that a blow to the defendant's head impaired his mental condition sufficiently to preclude formation of a conscious objective to cause the victim's death. People v. Delaney, 44 Colo. App. 366, 620 P.2d 44 (1980) (decided under former section).
No affirmative defense to second degree murder. Under former section, the affirmative defense of diminished responsibility due to impaired mental condition was not an affirmative defense to the general intent crime of second degree murder. People v. Gallegos, 628 P.2d 999 (Colo. 1981).
Applied in People v. Cornelison, 192 Colo. 337, 559 P.2d 1102 (1977); People v. Stitt, 40 Colo. App. 355, 575 P.2d 446 (1978); People v. Campbell, 196 Colo. 390, 589 P.2d 1360 (1978); People v. Thompson, 197 Colo. 299, 592 P.2d 803 (1979); People v. Mann, 646 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1982).