In July, 2015, Maria Laida Day hit her boyfriend with her car, causing his death. She claimed it was nothing more than a tragic accident. The prosecution disagreed. Based in part on her behavior immediately after the incident, they charged Day with second degree murder and other offenses. Day’s mental condition at the time of the killing became a crucial issue at trial.
Although the defendant never alleged that she was not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGRI”), she still sought to introduce expert testimony that alluded to her
previously diagnosed mental illness.
Section 16-8-107(3)(b), C.R.S. (2025), allows a defendant to offer such evidence, even in the absence of a NGRI plea, but only if she first notifies the prosecution and submits to a state-sponsored, mental-condition examination. Day provided notice under section 16-8-107(3)(b), but a mental-condition examination never occurred.
The trial court cited Day’s lack of cooperation with the evaluator as the reason no examination occurred, but Day was incompetent to proceed at the time she failed to cooperate. Even so, the trial court refused to permit Day’s psychiatric expert to testify at trial about her mental condition at the time of the offense. The court noted that, to introduce evidence of a defendant’s mental condition, the defendant must have undergone a court-ordered examination pursuant to section 16-8-107(3)(b), but no such examination had occurred here because of Day’s noncooperation: “Accordingly, on this basis alone the Court can deny the introduction of the defendant’s mental condition.”
A jury convicted Day as charged.
A division of the court of appeals reversed and remanded the case for a new trial on all counts for which culpability was at issue.
On March 16, the Colorado Supreme Court (4-3), held “that a defendant must be competent before undergoing a mental-condition examination under section 16-8-107(3)(b), C.R.S. (2025). Accordingly, a trial court shouldn’t use an incompetent defendant’s failure to cooperate with personnel during a competency evaluation as a basis to exclude expert mental-condition evidence at trial.”
Because the exclusion of the expert evidence deprived the defendant of the ability to rebut the prosecution’s theory of culpability, the Court affirmed the court of appeals’ decision, reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial. The supreme court also provided guidance on how courts should apply People v. Moore, 2021 СO 26, 485 P.3d 1088, and CRE 403 in determining the admissibility of mental-condition evidence.
Chief Justice Márquez, joined by Justice Boatright and Justice Blanco, dissented.
Read the entire opinion here.