2021 CO 26
Colo.2021Background:
- Aundre Moore is charged with first-degree murder for the fatal shooting of Jamaica McClain; Moore pleads not guilty and claims self-defense.
- Moore seeks to introduce expert testimony about his mental condition (private psychologist Dr. Wells and state forensic psychiatrist Dr. Brar) to support his subjective belief that deadly force was necessary.
- Dr. Wells diagnosed bipolar disorder with psychotic features and described impaired reality testing; Dr. Brar concluded Moore did not suffer a severe abnormal condition grossly impairing perception and attributed some impairments to voluntary substance use.
- The prosecution moved to exclude any evidence "relevant to the issue of insanity" unless Moore pleads not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI); the district court denied the motion and allowed the experts (Moore complied with statutory notice and exam requirements).
- The prosecution petitioned for extraordinary relief (C.A.R. 21); the Colorado Supreme Court granted review, held that evidence probative of statutory insanity must be excluded absent an NGRI plea, and remanded for the trial court to parse the proffered testimony and redact only insanity-probative portions.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mental-condition evidence offered to prove the defendant's subjective belief in self-defense is admissible absent an NGRI plea | All evidence "relevant to the issue of insanity" must be excluded unless defendant pleads NGRI | Defendant may introduce mental-condition evidence to prove subjective belief for self-defense without pleading NGRI (he complied with notice/exam) | Evidence that tends to prove statutory insanity is inadmissible absent an NGRI plea; non-insanity mental-condition evidence may be admitted if it meets statutory and evidentiary rules |
| How to determine what is "relevant to the issue of insanity" under §16-8-107(3)(a) | (Prosecution) The court should exclude any evidence that is relevant to insanity irrespective of offered purpose | (Moore) Court should focus on defendant’s stated purpose (subjective belief) | Court must assess probative effect against statutory definition: evidence is "relevant to insanity" if it tends to prove the Legislature's definitions in §16-8-101.5 (incapacity to distinguish right/wrong or inability to form culpable state due to a mental disease/defect) |
| Whether a diagnosis (e.g., bipolar disorder) automatically triggers insanity exclusion | Prosecution: diagnoses like bipolar disorder may be "severely abnormal" and thus relevant to insanity | Moore: diagnosis alone does not establish statutory insanity; some disorder-related evidence is admissible | A diagnosis alone is insufficient; trial court must examine whether the condition was so "severely abnormal" that it "grossly and demonstrably" impaired perception/understanding of reality |
| Scope of trial-court gatekeeping and remedy when proffer mixes insanity-probative and non-insanity material | Exclude insanity-probative material when no NGRI plea | Admit non-insanity material relevant to self-defense if statutory requirements/rules are met | Trial court must parse the proffer line-by-line: (1) admit portions not tending to prove insanity; (2) exclude portions that do; if all tends to prove insanity, admission only via NGRI; if mixed, defendant may plead NGRI or withdraw parts of the notice |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rosas, 459 P.3d 540 (Colo. 2020) (insanity evidence was clearly relevant where it showed a mental disease/defect rendering defendant incapable of forming culpable mental state)
- People v. Wilburn, 272 P.3d 1078 (Colo. 2012) (distinguishing admission of non-insanity mental-condition evidence from evidence requiring an NGRI plea)
- People v. Vanrees, 125 P.3d 403 (Colo. 2005) (mental slowness did not meet statutory definition of mental disease or defect)
- People v. Flippo, 159 P.3d 100 (Colo. 2007) (addressing notice/exam requirements for mental-condition expert evidence)
- People v. Lane, 343 P.3d 1019 (Colo. App. 2014) (admissibility of trauma-history and PTSD-related testimony with statutory notice; did not decide NGRI pleading requirement)
- People v. Voth, 312 P.3d 144 (Colo. 2013) (discussing exercise of original jurisdiction and appellate remedies)
- People v. Jones, 675 P.2d 9 (Colo. 1984) (reasonableness of accused's belief in necessity of defensive action is for the trier of fact)