People v. Manners, 84CA0400
| Decision Date | 19 September 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84CA0400,84CA0400 |
| Citation | 708 P.2d 1391 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James MANNERS, Defendant-Appellant. . III |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Dolores S. Atencio, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Claire Levy, Matthew L. Goldsmith, Deputy State Public Defenders, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant, James Manners, appeals from the judgment of conviction entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of second degree assault in violation of § 18-3-203(1)(f), C.R.S. (1984 Cum.Supp.). His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred by refusing to dismiss for cause a potential juror. We reverse.
During voir dire, venireman Dr. Clower revealed that he was employed part-time at the state penitentiary's medical clinic, where he was paid on a fee basis. After an in camera hearing defendant challenged Dr. Clower for cause. The trial court denied the challenge. Defendant subsequently used a peremptory challenge to excuse Dr. Clower, and eventually used all of his allotted peremptory challenges.
Section 16-10-103(1)(k), C.R.S. , provides that a "court shall sustain a challenge for cause" if "the juror is ... a compensated employee of a public law enforcement agency." (emphasis added) All penitentiary employees, including counselors and bakers, are considered "compensated employees of a public law enforcement agency." People v. Scott, 41 Colo.App. 66, 583 P.2d 939 (1978). Under the statute, the actual function of an employee of a law enforcement agency is irrelevant. People v. Scott, supra. Also, there need be no showing of actual bias on the part of the employee in order to sustain a challenge for cause. People in Interest of R.A.D., 196 Colo. 430, 586 P.2d 46 (1978).
The People argue that Dr. Clower was a part-time employee of the prison and did not rely on fees from the prison for all of his livelihood. Therefore, they reason, he was analogous to an independent contractor and was not a "compensated employee" as envisioned by the statute. This argument is without merit.
Dr. Clower was in fact a compensated employee of the state penitentiary. Thus, under People v. Scott, supra and People in Interest of R.A.D., supra, the defendant's challenge for cause should have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tremaine D. Speer
...functions is not dispositive of his ability to sit. See People v. Coleman, 844 P.2d 1215, 1218 (Colo.App.1992); People v. Manners, 708 P.2d 1391, 1392 (Colo.App.1985); People v. Maes, 43 Colo.App. 365, 367, 609 P.2d 1105, 1107 (1979); People v. Scott, 41 Colo.App. 66, 68, 583 P.2d 939, 941–......
-
People v. Urrutia
...of the peace and as such have the power to arrest all persons who ... are found ... violating any criminal law...."); People v. Manners, 708 P.2d 1391 (Colo.App.1985) (physician employed part time at prison medical clinic should have been excused from criminal jury); People v. Scott, 41 Col......
-
People v. Simon
...Crim. P. 24(b)(1)(XII). No actual bias need be shown to sustain such a challenge for cause, and bias is implied. People v. Manners, 708 P.2d 1391 (Colo.App. 1985); see People v. Rhodus, 870 P.2d 470 As a threshold matter, defendant does not contend that "all employees of the EPA would neces......
-
People v. Speer
...enforcement agency is irrelevant. The statute extends, for example, to physicians employed at a prison clinic, see People v. Manners, 708 P.2d 1391, 1392 (Colo.App.1985); bakers and counselors employed by the state prison, see Scott, 41 Colo.App. at 68, 583 P.2d at 942; and mechanics workin......
-
Chapter 5 - § 5.2 • JURY SELECTION
...for cause pursuant to C.R.S. § 16-10-103(1)(k) and Crim. P. 24(b)(1)(XII) has been addressed in several contexts. People v. Manners, 708 P.2d 1391, 1392 (Colo. App. 1985), held that, under the statute, the actual function of an employee of a law enforcement agency is irrelevant. The same an......