Previous  Next

18-1.3-1102. Pretrial motion by defendant in class 1 felony case - determination whether defendant is mentally retarded or has an intellectual and developmental disability - procedure.

Statute text

(1) Any defendant may file a motion with the trial court in which the defendant may allege that such defendant is a mentally retarded defendant or a defendant with an intellectual and developmental disability. The motion must be filed at least ninety-one days prior to trial.

(2) The court shall hold a hearing upon any motion filed pursuant to subsection (1) of this section and shall make a determination regarding the motion no later than fourteen days prior to trial. At such hearing, the defendant must be permitted to present evidence with regard to the motion and the prosecution must be permitted to offer evidence in rebuttal. The defendant has the burden of proof to show by clear and convincing evidence that he or she is mentally retarded or has an intellectual and developmental disability.

(3) The court shall enter specific findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding whether or not the defendant is a mentally retarded defendant or a defendant with an intellectual and developmental disability, as defined in section 18-1.3-1101.

History

Source: L. 2002: Entire article added with relocations, p. 1444, 2, effective October 1. L. 2012: (1) and (2) amended, (SB 12-175), ch. 208, p. 868, 119, effective July 1. L. 2018: Entire section amended, (SB 18-096), ch. 44, p. 469, 3, effective August 8.

Annotations

Editor's note: This section is similar to former 16-9-402 as it existed prior to 2002.

Annotations

Cross references: For the legislative declaration in SB 18-096, see section 1 of chapter 44, Session Laws of Colorado 2018.

Annotations

 

ANNOTATION

Annotations

The allocation by this section of the burden of proof to the defendant is constitutionally permissible. People v. Vasquez, 84 P.3d 1019 (Colo. 2004).

The clear and convincing standard of proof placed upon the defendant by this section is constitutionally adequate. People v. Vasquez, 84 P.3d 1019 (Colo. 2004).