People v. Bondurant
2012 COA 50
Colo. Ct. App.2012Background
- Bondurant was convicted by jury of first degree murder, second degree murder, first degree felony murder, first degree burglary, false imprisonment, theft, two counts of menacing, and four counts of child abuse.
- He challenged the constitutionality of Colorado statutes requiring a court-ordered mental examination before introducing expert testimony on mental condition, including sections 16-8-106, 16-8-107(8)(b), and related provisions.
- The defense argued the scheme violated separation of powers and was vague on its face and as applied, among other rights related to self-incrimination, defense, and counsel.
- Factual backdrop: Bondurant entered the Hawkinses’ residence with a gun to visit his children; a confrontation occurred, resulting in two deaths.
- Bondurant offered psychiatric testimony alleging severe depression and panic at the time of offenses; the court-ordered examination and disclosure rules governed the admissibility of that evidence.
- The appellate court upheld the statutes, rejected the constitutional challenges, and affirmed the convictions and sentences.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality under separation of powers | Bondurant contends 16-8-107(8)(b) is purely procedural and usurps judiciary rulemaking. | Bondurant argues the statute intrudes on judicial rulemaking and criminal procedure. | Not violated; statute blends procedural with public policy aims without substantial conflict. |
| Vagueness of 'mental condition' and 'cooperate' | Bondurant asserts the terms are vague on facial and applied grounds. | Bondurant argues the terms are sufficiently defined by context and existing insanity framework. | Facial and applied challenges fail; 'mental illness' falls within ordinary meaning; cooperation is not unconstitutionally vague. |
| Self-incrimination | The compulsory examination coerces unprivileged statements violating Fifth Amendment protections. | Bondurant contends the scheme pressures involuntary statements. | No violation; statements are limited to mental condition issues and are admissible under specified limits. |
| Right to present a defense and effective assistance | The scheme precludes defense by noncooperative defendants and thus violates due process and counsel effectiveness. | Bondurant claims the rules hinder presenting a mental-condition defense and impair counsel. | Not violated; cases permit the defense when pursued consistent with the statute; noncooperation does not bar defense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gray v. District Court, 884 P.2d 286 (Colo. 1994) (insanity defense and waiver history; legislative purpose of examinations)
- Roadcap, 78 P.3d 1108 (Colo. App. 2003) (defense allowed despite requirement to cooperate; interpretation of rights)
- Herrera, 87 P.3d 240 (Colo. App. 2003) (insanity/mental condition evidence and disclosure rules in context)
- Crowe v. Tull, 126 P.3d 196 (Colo. 2006) (overlap of judicial rulemaking and legislative policy allowed if no conflict)
- McKenna, 196 Colo. 367, 585 P.2d 275 (Colo. 1978) (rape shield statute; permissible overlap of branches)
- Oram, 217 P.3d 883 (Colo. App. 2009) (intent element in burglary amendments overruled Cooper)