PEOPLE EX REL. JG, No. 03CA1374.
| Docket Nº | No. 03CA1374. |
| Citation | 97 P.3d 300 |
| Case Date | March 25, 2004 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
97 P.3d 300
The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner-Appellant,In the Interest of J.G., a Juvenile, Appellee
No. 03CA1374.
Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.
March 25, 2004.
Certiorari Denied September 7, 2004.1
David S. Kaplan, Colorado State Public Defender, Stephen Sneider, Deputy State Public Defender, Fort Collins, Colorado, for Appellee.
Opinion by Judge TAUBMAN.
The People appeal a district court order reversing a magistrate's judgment adjudicating J.G. delinquent. We reverse and remand with directions to reinstate the judgment of delinquency.
A delinquency petition was filed alleging that J.G. committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the offense of unlawful possession of a schedule II controlled substance. A trial on the petition was conducted before a magistrate.
J.G.'s foster father testified that he observed J.G. sitting with another youth who was preparing to smoke a substance on a piece of aluminum foil. J.G. and the other youth told the foster father they were smoking "crack." The foster father confiscated the residue-covered foil, as well as a plastic bag containing a small amount of a substance which the other youth identified as "drugs." The foster father gave these items to his wife, who placed them in a jar which she stored in their bedroom.
Four days later, the foster parents called the police. When a police officer arrived at the house, the foster parents retrieved the jar and gave it to the officer. According to the foster father, the jar and its contents had been in "safekeeping" at all times.
The police officer testified that J.G. admitted the drugs in the jar were his. The officer further testified that she placed the jar and its contents in an evidence bag, marked the bag with the case number, and logged it in as evidence.
A forensic toxicologist with the Colorado Bureau of Investigation testified that she received a sealed evidence bag bearing the same case number as that described by the officer. The toxicologist testified that she removed a tan-colored substance and tested it using reactive agents and a gas chromatograph mass spectrometer. The tests revealed that the substance was methamphetamine.
The youth who was with J.G. on the night in question testified the methamphetamine belonged to J.G.
Based on this evidence, the magistrate found the People had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that J.G. had unlawfully possessed methamphetamine, a schedule II controlled substance. Accordingly, the magistrate entered a judgment of delinquency.
J.G. filed a petition for review in the district court pursuant to § 19-1-108(5), C.R.S.2003. The district court found that, although the People had established a sufficient chain of custody for the seized substance, the magistrate erred by allowing the toxicologist to testify concerning the test results because the People "failed to offer any physical evidence for identification or authentication by any of the witnesses that testified about the substance." The court further concluded that, without such identification or authentication, the evidence was insufficient to support the magistrate's judgment. The district
The People filed this appeal.
I. Double Jeopardy
As an initial matter, we reject J.G.'s claim that the People are barred from seeking reinstatement of the judgment of delinquency because double jeopardy attached in the district court.
The Double Jeopardy Clauses of the United States and Colorado Constitutions preclude a person from being twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense. See People v. Borghesi, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re B.F., No. 20080140.
...conclusions supplied by the district court was identical in nature to the review we must undertake on this appeal."); Interest of J.G., 97 P.3d 300, 302 (Colo.Ct.App.2004) ("[B]ecause the district court reviews only the record of the hearing before the magistrate, its review is similar to a......
-
People ex rel. J.O., Court of Appeals No. 20CA1539
...trier of fact might accept it as sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See People in Interest of J.G. , 97 P.3d 300, 302–03 (Colo. App. 2004) (finding evidence sufficient to support adjudication despite juvenile court's contrary finding on review of the magistr......
-
In re Marriage of Anthony-Guillar, No. 07CA2224.
...Our review of the district court's decision is "similar to a second level of appellate review." People in Interest of J.G., 97 P.3d 300, 302 (Colo.App. III. Analysis Mother contends the magistrate made a mistake of law by treating the disability payments as the child's income instead of mot......
-
People v. Valencia, No. 08CA0456.
...order to establish the identity of that object; such identity may be established by other evidence. See, e.g., People in Interest of J.G., 97 P.3d 300, 303 (Colo.App.2004). We do agree, however, that before expert testimony as to the results of the testing of an object may be received, some......
-
In re B.F., No. 20080140.
...conclusions supplied by the district court was identical in nature to the review we must undertake on this appeal."); Interest of J.G., 97 P.3d 300, 302 (Colo.Ct.App.2004) ("[B]ecause the district court reviews only the record of the hearing before the magistrate, its review is similar to a......
-
People ex rel. J.O., Court of Appeals No. 20CA1539
...trier of fact might accept it as sufficient to support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See People in Interest of J.G. , 97 P.3d 300, 302–03 (Colo. App. 2004) (finding evidence sufficient to support adjudication despite juvenile court's contrary finding on review of the magistr......
-
In re Marriage of Anthony-Guillar, No. 07CA2224.
...Our review of the district court's decision is "similar to a second level of appellate review." People in Interest of J.G., 97 P.3d 300, 302 (Colo.App. III. Analysis Mother contends the magistrate made a mistake of law by treating the disability payments as the child's income instead of mot......
-
People v. Valencia, No. 08CA0456.
...order to establish the identity of that object; such identity may be established by other evidence. See, e.g., People in Interest of J.G., 97 P.3d 300, 303 (Colo.App.2004). We do agree, however, that before expert testimony as to the results of the testing of an object may be received, some......