HB 25-1058
signedNot Guilty by Reason of Insanity Defense
Plain-English Summary
AI-generatedHouse Bill 25-1058, also known as the "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity Defense" bill, changes how Colorado courts handle defendants who plead not guilty due to mental illness. The bill requires judges to work with mental health experts to decide if a defendant needs an overnight stay for a thorough evaluation and sets rules for where these evaluations can take place—either at a jail or a specialized facility. It also ensures that during any recorded examination, the defendant is dressed appropriately and not visibly restrained. The bill has been signed into law, meaning its provisions are now in effect. This affects anyone who enters a "not guilty by reason of insanity" plea in Colorado courts and impacts how these cases are handled moving forward.
Official Summary
When a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity is accepted by a court, the act requires the court, in consultation with the department of human services (CDHS) and the parties, to determine whether a sanity examination requires the defendant to stay overnight for an extended examination and the number of days of the extended examination. If the defendant is in custody, the act authorizes the sanity examination to be conducted at the jail or place of confinement or at a facility operated by or under contract with CDHS. If the defendant is at liberty on summons or on bond, the act authorizes the sanity examination to be conducted at a facility operated by or contracted with CDHS or at an out-of-custody location that the court and CDHS determine is appropriate. If a sanity examination is recorded, the act prohibits a defendant from being dressed in prison or jail clothing and prohibits restraints on the defendant from being visible on the recording. Current law authorizes psychiatrists, forensic psychologists, and other personnel conducting a sanity examination to conduct a narcoanalytic interview of the defendant with drugs that are medically appropriate, to subject the defendant to a polygraph examination, and to testify to the results of the procedures, statements, and reactions of the defendant. The act repeals this provision. The act makes conforming amendments and technical corrections. (Note: This summary applies to this bill as enacted.)
Details
- Chamber
- House
- First action
- 2025-03-14
- Latest action
- 2025-01-08
- Last action desc.
- Introduced In House - Assigned to Judiciary
- OpenStates
- View source ↗
Sponsors
- Mary Bradfield (primary) · Republican
- Regina English (primary) · Democratic
- Judy Amabile (primary) · Democratic
- Lisa Cutter (cosponsor) · Democratic
- Kyle Brown (cosponsor) · Democratic
- Chad Clifford (cosponsor) · Democratic
- Monica Duran (cosponsor) · Democratic
- Junie Joseph (cosponsor) · Democratic
- Javier Mabrey (cosponsor) · Democratic
- Julie McCluskie (cosponsor) · Democratic
- Gretchen Rydin (cosponsor) · Democratic
- Yara Zokaie (cosponsor) · Democratic
- Matt Ball (cosponsor) · Democratic
- James Coleman (cosponsor) · Democratic
- Julie Gonzales (cosponsor) · Democratic
- Iman Jodeh (cosponsor) · Democratic
- Cathy Kipp (cosponsor) · Democratic
- Janice Marchman (cosponsor) · Democratic
- Robert Rodriguez (cosponsor) · Democratic
- Mike Weissman (cosponsor) · Democratic