In re People, Supreme Court Case No. 13SA107
| Docket Nº | Supreme Court Case No. 13SA107 |
| Citation | 2013 CO 65 |
| Case Date | November 12, 2013 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
2013 CO 65
In Re Petitioner: The People of the State of Colorado,
In the Interest of Child: A.A.
Supreme Court Case No. 13SA107
Supreme Court of the State of Colorado
November 12, 2013
Original Proceeding Pursuant to C.A.R. 21
Adams County District Court Case No. 10JD700
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Dave Young, District Attorney, Seventeenth Judicial District
Brett Martin, Deputy District Attorney
Brighton, Colorado
Attorneys for Respondent:
Douglas Wilson, Colorado State Public Defender
Jessica Valdivia-Luna, Deputy State Public Defender B
righton, Colorado
JUSTICE COATS delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 The People petitioned pursuant to C.A.R. 21 for relief from an in limine ruling of the juvenile court allowing the introduction of testimony by the juvenile's psychological expert without regard for the court-ordered examination mandated by section 16-8-107, C.R.S. (2013). The lower court reasoned that in the absence of any provision of the Criminal Procedure Code specifying otherwise, the requirements of section 16-8-107 did not apply to delinquency proceedings.
¶2 Because the Colorado Code of Criminal Procedure, title 16 of the revised statutes, expressly provides that it will not apply to proceedings under the Colorado Children's Code except as specifically set forth in the Criminal Procedure Code itself, and because no provision of the Criminal Procedure Code suggests that section 16-8-107 was intended to apply to proceedings under the Children's Code, the ruling of the juvenile court is approved, and the Rule is discharged.
¶3 In December 2010, the district attorney filed a petition in delinquency alleging that A.A. committed sexual assault on a child, as proscribed by section 18-3-405(1), C.R.S. (2013). More specifically, the petition alleged that on or about July 26, 2010, the juvenile subjected one of his neighbors, who was less than 15 years of age and at least four years younger than him, to sexual contact. A question as to the juvenile's competency to proceed was raised in pre-trial hearings. Notwithstanding an assessment of incompetency by the juvenile's own psychological expert, the district court ultimately determined that the juvenile was competent to proceed, and the matter was set for trial.
¶4 When the juvenile's endorsement of witnesses for trial included the psychological expert who determined the juvenile was incompetent, the People moved in limine to preclude her from offering any expert testimony regarding the juvenile's mental condition on the grounds that the juvenile had not undergone the court-ordered examination required by section 16-8-107, C.R.S. (2013), as a prerequisite to such testimony in criminal trials.1 The juvenile court ultimately denied the motion, finding that in the absence of some provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure specifically making section 16-8-107 applicable to proceedings under the Children's Code, the procedural prerequisites of the statute were inapplicable to juvenile delinquency proceedings.
¶5 The People petitioned this court pursuant to C.A.R. 21 for immediate review of the juvenile court's ruling.
¶6 Articles 1 to 13 of title 16 of the revised statutes are designated the "Colorado Code of Criminal Procedure." § 16-1-101(1), C.R.S. (2013). Article 8 is devoted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. G.S.S., Court of Appeals No. 17CA1678
...it is ambiguous and we may look to intrinsic and extrinsic aids to guide our interpretation. See In re People in Interest of A.A. , 2013 CO 65, ¶ 10, 312 P.3d 1170.A. A Juvenile's Statutory Speedy Trial Rights¶ 8 There are several statutes in the Children's Code that cross-reference one ano......
-
People v. G.S.S., Court of Appeals No. 17CA1678
...it is ambiguous and wePage 5 may look to intrinsic and extrinsic aids to guide our interpretation. See In re People in Interest of A.A., 2013 CO 65, ¶ 10.A. A Juvenile's Statutory Speedy Trial Rights¶ 8 There are several statutes in the Children's Code that cross-reference one another and a......
-
People ex rel. T.T., Court of Appeals No. 16CA1542
...and replaced with initials or some other reference excluding identifiable information. See, e.g. , In re People in Interest of A.A. , 2013 CO 65, ¶ 3, 312 P.3d 1170 (referring to a juvenile defendant accused of sexual assault on a child by the defendant's initials and referring to the victi......
-
People v. T.T., Court of Appeals No. 16CA1542
...and replaced with initials or some other reference excluding identifiable information. See, e.g., In re People in Interest of A.A., 2013 CO 65, ¶ 3 (referring to a juvenile defendant accused of sexual assault on a child by the defendant's initials and referring to the victim as "one of [the......