(1) The issues raised by the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity must be treated as an affirmative defense and must be tried at the same proceeding and before the same trier of fact as the charges to which not guilty by reason of insanity is offered as a defense.
(2) This section applies to offenses committed on or after July 1, 1995.
Source: L. 96: Entire section added, p. 3, § 1, effective January 31. L. 2025: Entire section amended, (HB 25-1058), ch. 15, p. 44, § 9, effective August 6.
ANNOTATION
Unitary trial provisions did not violate defendant's right against self-incrimination and his rights to due process and a fair trial. Jury was instructed that evidence concerning defendant's statements during his sanity examination was to be considered only to determine whether defendant had the capacity to form or did form the requisite culpable mental state and for no other purpose. Where there is nothing in the record to suggest the contrary, the jury is presumed to have followed the instruction. People v. Bielecki, 964 P.2d 598 (Colo. App. 1998).
Jury instructions based on § 16-8-107 are sufficient to protect a defendant's privilege against self-incrimination. Absent evidence to the contrary, courts presume jurors understand and heed jury instructions. People v. Marko, 2015 COA 139, 434 P.3d 618, aff'd, 2018 CO 97, 432 P.3d 607.
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.