People v. Scott, 76-886
Citation | 583 P.2d 939,41 Colo.App. 66 |
Decision Date | 11 May 1978 |
Docket Number | No. 76-886,76-886 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William R. SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant. . II |
Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., David W. Robbins, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edward G. Donovan, Linda Palmieri Rigsby, Asst. Attys. Gen., Denver, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rollie R. Rogers, Colorado State Public Defender, James F. Dumas, Jr., Chief Deputy State Public Defender, Lee J. Belstock, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant, William R. Scott, was convicted by a jury of introducing contraband in the first degree in violation of § 18-8-203, C.R.S.1973. At the time of the alleged offense defendant was an inmate of the Colorado State Penitentiary. On appeal he contends that the trial court erred in denying his challenges for cause of four prospective jurors and in refusing to grant him a new trial on the basis of certain remarks of the prosecutor in closing argument. We reverse.
Three members of the jury panel worked or had worked at the penitentiary; one was a counselor, one was a baker, and one was a retired guard. Defendant challenged these prospective jurors for cause on the basis of their being present or former compensated employees of a public law enforcement agency. The challenges were denied. 1
Except for the baker, who served on the jury, these prospective jurors were excused on defendant's peremptory challenges. Defendant exercised the ten peremptory challenges permitted by statute and, apparently through inadvertence, was permitted one additional peremptory challenge, which he also exercised.
Defendant urges that the trial court's denial of his challenges for cause to the penitentiary employees violated statutory provisions and court rules relating to jury selection, § 16-10-103(1)(i) and (k), C.R.S.1973, and Crim.P. 24(b)(1)(IX) and (XII), and in the context of the trial of a penitentiary inmate, abridged his constitutional right to an impartial jury as construed in Tate v. People, 125 Colo. 527, 247 P.2d 665 (1952). We agree that the denial of defendant's challenges for cause was reversible error.
Section 16-10-103(1)(k), C.R.S.1973, and Crim.P. 24(b)(1)(XII), provide:
The People contend that the penitentiary, as a state "institution" within the Department of Institutions, See §§ 27-1-104 and 27-20-101, C.R.S.1973, 2 is not a law enforcement agency within the meaning of the above-quoted statute. We disagree.
Section 27-20-103, C.R.S.1973 (1976 Cum.Supp.) (now Colo.Sess.Laws 1977, ch. 223, 17-20-103 at 918), authorizes specified personnel of the penitentiary to perform law enforcement functions, as follows:
"The superintendents of the state penitentiary and their assistants, the guards and keepers, shall be conservators of the peace and as such have the power to arrest or cause to be arrested, with or without process, upon any grounds owned or leased by this state and Colorado and used by the state penitentiary, all persons who break the peace or are found upon said grounds violating any criminal law of this state and to take such persons before any court of competent jurisdiction for trial."
See also § 18-1-901(3)(L ), C.R.S.1973 (1976 Cum.Supp.).
In our view, this grant of law enforcement authority to supervisory penitentiary personnel considered together with the penitentiary's extensive involvement with law enforcement functions serves to bring the institution within the meaning of the term "public law enforcement agency" as that term is used in the jury selection statute and rule. Accordingly, since that statute and rule do not discriminate on the basis of the particular function served by the challenged employee, but mandate that all present employees of law enforcement agencies shall be excused from jury service we conclude that defendant's challenges for cause of the counselor and the baker should have been sustained.
As the jury selection statute and rule do not purport to disqualify Former employees of a public law enforcement agency challenged for cause, defendant's challenge of the retired guard member of the jury panel was properly denied. See also Annot., 72 A.L.R.3d 958 (1976).
Since defendant exercised all of his peremptory challenges and failed to disqualify one of the penitentiary employees by peremptory challenge, we conclude that prejudice from denial of his challenges for cause has been established. See Skeels v. People, 145 Colo. 281, 358 P.2d 605 (1961).
In view of our disposition here, we need not address defendant's alternative contentions with regard to the denial of his challenges for cause, or his remaining assignment of error concerning the prosecutor's closing argument.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
The majority holds that the penitentiary is "a public law enforcement agency" within the meaning of the jury selection statute and rule, and in effect holds that, therefore, all of its employees, regardless of function, are subject to challenge for cause. I do not agree.
The penitentiary at the time of this offense was a state institution, managed,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mulder v. State
...that she had previously worked as a nurse at a maximum security prison. Mulder relies on a Colorado case, People v. Scott , 41 Colo.App. 66, 583 P.2d 939 (1978), for the proposition that personnel of a penitentiary constitute law enforcement such that they "shall be excused from jury servic......
-
People v. Tremaine D. Speer
...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, 941–42 (1978). By the same token, however, a prospective juror's governmental employer does not become a public law enforcement agency ......
-
People v. Urrutia
...(Colo.App.1985) (physician employed part time at prison medical clinic should have been excused from criminal jury); People v. Scott, 41 Colo.App. 66, 583 P.2d 939 (1978) (bakers and counselors employed by the state prisons should have been excused from criminal However, simply because a st......
-
People v. Simon
...People v. Manners, supra (under statute, actual function of an employee of a law enforcement agency is irrelevant); People v. Scott, 41 Colo.App. 66, 583 P.2d 939 (1978)(bakers and counselors employed by the state prison are within scope of The statute does not define the term "public law e......
-
Challenges for Cause in Criminal Trials
...fifteen to ten. 2. C.R.Crim.P. Rule 24(d). 3. C.R.S. 1973, § 16-10-103(1)(k). 4. C.R.S. 1973, § 16-10-103(1)(j). 5. People v. Scott, 41 Colo.App. 66, 583 P.2d 939 (1978, cert. denied). 6. People in Interest of R.A.D., 196 Colo. 430, 586 P.2d 46 (1978). 7. People v. Maes, 43 Colo.App. 365, 6......