People v. Yascavage
| Decision Date | 30 November 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 03SC559.,03SC559. |
| Citation | 101 P.3d 1090 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner, v. Daniel P. YASCAVAGE, Respondent. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Ken Salazar, Attorney General, Patricia R. Van Horn, Assistant Attorney General, Appellate Division, Criminal Justice Section, Denver, for Petitioner.
David S. Kaplan, Colorado State Public Defender, Douglas D. Barnes, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for Respondent.
In this case, the People appeal a decision by the court of appeals vacating Daniel P. Yascavage's conviction for the crime of tampering with a victim or witness by criminal solicitation.1 The court of appeals reversed the conviction for insufficient evidence because it concluded that section 18-8-707, C.R.S. (2004) (the "tampering statute"), requires proof that the victim or witness with whom the defendant tampered had been legally summoned to a proceeding. We granted certiorari in People v. Yascavage, 80 P.3d 899 (Colo.App.2003) to determine whether section 18-8-707, requires that the victim or witness with whom the defendant allegedly tampered was legally summoned and whether the general assembly intended "legally summoned" to mean "subpoenaed" or "subject to legal process."2
Section 18-8-707 does not require a victim or witness to be "legally summoned" or subject to any legal process when the defendant is charged under subsections (1)(a) or (1)(c) of the statute. We do conclude, however, that when a defendant is charged under subsection (1)(b), the plain meaning of the statute requires that the victim or witness has been legally summoned to an official proceeding. Consistent with our precedent and the statute, we construe "legally summoned" to mean that the witness be under some obligation to the court to appear and testify but not necessarily be under subpoena. We therefore hold that when the prosecution charges the defendant with a violation of section 18-8-707(1)(b), it must present evidence that the defendant attempted to induce a witness or victim to absent themselves from a proceeding to which he or she had been "legally summoned." The prosecution failed to present such evidence in this case. Therefore, we affirm the court of appeals' decision vacating the tampering by criminal solicitation conviction.
Larriane Collier and Daniel P. Yascavage met in May of 1999. After several months of an "on-again-off-again" relationship, Collier sought to terminate the relationship and obtained a restraining order against Yascavage in April, 2000. Yascavage continued contacting Collier until he was arrested on charges of harassment and domestic violence in May, 2000. While Yascavage was in custody awaiting trial he telephoned a friend and said the charges against him might be dropped if someone "got to" Collier and she failed to show up for court. The Adams County Sheriff's office recorded this telephone conversation. Yascavage was charged with criminal solicitation to tamper with a witness or victim. See § 18-2-301, C.R.S. (2004); § 18-8-707, C.R.S. (2004).
Jury trial commenced on March 12, 2001 on three counts of harassment by stalking,3 three counts of violation of a restraining order,4 and criminal solicitation to tamper with a victim or witness. Collier testified against the defendant at trial but there is no evidence that she was under subpoena at the time. The trial court instructed the jury on the elements of criminal solicitation and the elements of tampering with a witness or victim as it pertains to section 18-8-707(1)(b) as follows:
[T]hat the defendant ... intentionally attempted without bribery or threats ... to induce a witness or victim or a person who he believed was to be called as a witness in any official proceeding ... to absent herself from any official proceeding to which she had been legally summoned.
On March 14, 2001, the jury returned guilty verdicts on one count of harassment by stalking, two counts of violation of a restraining order, and criminal solicitation to commit tampering with a witness or victim. Yascavage was sentenced to two years imprisonment on the tampering count, to be served consecutively to the sentences imposed on the other counts.
Yascavage appealed each of his convictions. With respect to his tampering conviction, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction because the prosecution presented no evidence to the jury that Collier had been "legally summoned" as required by section 18-8-707.
In a published opinion, the court of appeals agreed, vacating the tampering conviction and holding that neither the mere presence of the victim at trial nor the information listing Collier as a potential witness would permit the jury to conclude that she was legally summoned.
We granted certiorari to decide whether the tampering statute requires proof that the witness or victim was legally summoned to an official proceeding and whether the general assembly intended "legally summoned" in the context of the tampering statute, to mean "subject to legal process." We now hold that section 18-8-707 does require that the victim or witness be legally summoned when the defendant is prosecuted under section 18-8-707(1)(b) and that the general assembly intended "legally summoned" in that subsection to mean that the witness have some obligation to the court to appear.
In 1963, the Colorado legislature defined a new crime of tampering. See § 40-8-605, C.R.S. (1963) (1971 Perm. Cum.Supp.). The purpose of the crime was to punish any attempt to induce another to testify falsely or otherwise to subvert the administration of justice. People v. Moyer, 670 P.2d 785, 791 (Colo.1983); Model Penal Code § 241.6 cmt 1. Subsequently, the tampering statute became part of Title Eighteen. § 18-6-605, (1973) (1978 Repl.Vol. 8). Most recently, the legislature repealed and re-enacted the tampering statute as part of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1984. See ch. 122 sec. 4, § 18-8-701, 1984 Colo. Sess. Laws 499, 502. The language of the tampering statute remained largely unchanged through this period of time. Accordingly, comments following the adoption of section 40-8-605 and cases construing section 18-8-605 are relevant in interpreting the modern provision.
Colorado's tampering statute was modeled after Michigan proposal section 5020,5 which was in turn derived from the Model Penal Code section 241.6. See § 40-8-605 cmt. The drafters of the Model Penal Code sought to deter conduct that would affect the integrity of the criminal justice system by protecting against those who would seek to undermine the veracity and cooperation of witnesses and informants. MPC § 241.6 cmt. 1. Section 241.6 of the Model Penal Code dealt with tampering, retaliation, and bribery of witnesses and informants. The Michigan code dealt with intimidation, bribery, coercion or threats against witnesses separately from tampering. Michigan Code §§ 5005, 5015. Section 5020 was intended to apply to the "less sinister means" of impeding the administration of justice through improper contact with witnesses; such as use of general argument or pleading to persuade a prospective witness to withhold information on the stand or disobey a subpoena. Mich. Rev.Crim.Code § 5020 cmt. Both model laws focused on the defendant's subjective intent to subvert the administration of justice by improperly inducing a person to refrain from cooperating with the authorities. We interpret section 18-8-707 against that historical backdrop.
In construing a statute, our goal is to determine and give effect to the intent of the legislature and adopt the statutory construction that best effectuates the purposes of the legislative scheme. See Reg'l Transp. Dist. v. Lopez, 916 P.2d 1187, 1192 (Colo.1996),
Bynum v. Kautzky, 784 P.2d 735 (Colo.1989). Basic principles of statutory interpretation guide us. First we look to the language of the statute itself. Martinez v. Badis, 842 P.2d 245 (Colo.1992). We read words and phrases in context and construe them literally according to common usage unless they have acquired a technical meaning by legislative definition. §§ 2-4-101, 2-4-212, C.R.S. (2004); People v. J.J.H., 17 P.3d 159 (Colo.2001). Absent some ambiguity in the language of the statute, we do not resort to any further rules of statutory construction. People v. Cooper, 27 P.3d 348 (Colo.2001). However, if the language is ambiguous, we may rely on other factors such as legislative history, the consequences of a given construction, and the end to be achieved by the statute. § 2-4-203, C.R.S. (2004), Schubert v. People, 698 P.2d 788, 793-94 (Colo.1985).
Yascavage's conviction turns on our interpretation of one subsection of the statute only. However, the issue on certiorari addresses the statute as a whole, and we therefore begin by reviewing section 18-8-707 in its entirety.
Section 18-8-707 identifies the class of persons the legislature intended to protect, when such persons would be protected, and from what actions these persons would be protected. The introductory provision of the tampering statute provides:
A person commits tampering with a witness or victim if he intentionally attempts without bribery or threats to induce a witness or victim or a person he believes is to be called to testify as a witness or victim in any official proceeding or who may be called to testify as a witness to or victim of any crime to [do one of the following].
§ 18-8-707(1), C.R.S. (2004). The Model Penal Code section 241.6 referenced "witnesses" and "informants" only. Colorado chose to refer to "witnesses" and "victims" and adopted an expansive definition of "witness" encompassing a much broader class than proposed by the Model Penal Code.
"Witness" means any natural person:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Vigil
...ambiguous, we may look to other factors, including the underlying purpose of the statute and its legislative history. People v. Yascavage, 101 P.3d 1090, 1093 (Colo.2004). In 1971, the General Assembly enacted a complete revision of the criminal code, drawing heavily from the recently draft......
-
United States v. Richter
...such as legislative history, the consequences of a given construction, and the end to be achieved by the statute.” See People v. Yascavage, 101 P.3d 1090, 1093 (Colo.2004). Considering the legislative purpose of the adoption of Colorado's waste management program generally, and the Departme......
-
In re Marriage of Ciesluk, No. 04SC555.
...best effectuates the purposes of the legislative scheme, looking first to the plain language of the statute. E.g., People v. Yascavage, 101 P.3d 1090, 1093 (Colo.2004). Here, the General Assembly's intent to eliminate the Francis presumption is readily apparent on the face of the statute. T......
-
People v. Grant
...state may be inferred from his or her conduct and other evidence," People v. Yascavage, 80 P.3d 899, 902 (Colo. App.2003), aff'd, 101 P.3d 1090 (Colo.2004), including the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crime, People v. Preciado-Flores, 66 P.3d 155, 165 (Colo.App.2002). (3) ......