v.

• Decision Date: 05 June 2017
• Docket Number: Supreme Court Case No. 14SC858,Supreme Court Case No. 14SC31
• Citation: 2017 CO 66
• Parties: Petitioner: Adam Michael Teague, v. Respondent: The People of the State of Colorado. Petitioner: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Respondent: Bobby Nicky Rogers.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

2017 CO 66

Petitioner: Adam Michael Teague, v. Respondent: The People of the State of Colorado.Petitioner: The People of the State of Colorado, v. Respondent: Bobby Nicky Rogers.

Supreme Court Case No. 14SC31

Supreme Court Case No. 14SC858

Supreme Court of the State of Colorado

June 5, 2017

Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch's homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado Bar Association's homepage at http://www.cobar.org.

ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE

Criminal Law — Sentencing and Punishment — Costs Taxable Against Defendant.

In this combined opinion, the supreme court addresses whether sexual offenders must shoulder the cost of their victims' forensic medical examinations as criminal restitution. By statute, such restitution may include "extraordinary direct public . . . investigative costs." The court therefore considers whether the cost of a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) examination is "extraordinary" for purposes of the statute. As both a medical and investigative response to a sexual offense, these examinations necessarily perform dual roles. The supreme court concludes that the hybrid nature of these exams renders them, and their resulting costs, extraordinary. It further concludes the state may therefore recover those costs as restitution.

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Case No. 10CA2358

Judgment Affirmed

en banc

Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Case No. 11CA1934

Judgment Reversed

en banc

Attorneys for Petitioner Adam Michael Teague:

Douglas K. Wilson, Public Defender

Andrew C. Heher, Deputy Public Defender

Denver, ColoradoAttorneys for Petitioner/Respondent The People of the State of Colorado:

Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General

Christine Brady, Senior Assistant Attorney General

Denver, Colorado

Attorneys for Respondent Bobby Nicky Rogers:

Douglas K. Wilson, Public Defender

Meghan M. Morris, Deputy Public Defender

Denver, Colorado

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Office of the District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District:

George H. Brauchler, District Attorney, Eighteenth Judicial District

Richard H. Orman, Chief Deputy District Attorney

Centennial, Colorado

JUSTICE HOOD delivered the Opinion of the Court.

JUSTICE GABRIEL does not participate.

¶1 We granted certiorari in these cases to determine whether sexual offenders must shoulder the cost of their victims' forensic medical examinations as criminal restitution. While the General Assembly has authorized recovery of "extraordinary direct public . . . investigative costs," divisions of our court of appeals have disagreed as to whether the cost of a victim's SANE (Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner) examination is in fact "extraordinary." We now conclude it is.

¶2 As both a medical and investigative response to a sexual offense, a SANE exam necessarily performs dual roles. It functions not only as a valuable tool for collecting sexual-assault evidence but also as a patient-centered medical procedure that is sensitive to victims' treatment needs, conducted by medical personnel, and limited to the scope of victims' informed consent. We conclude the hybrid nature of these exams renders them, and their resulting costs, extraordinary, and the state may recover those costs as restitution. We thus affirm the judgment of the court of appeals in People v. Teague, No. 10CA2358 (Colo. App. Nov. 27, 2013) (not published pursuant to C.A.R. 35(f)), and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals in People v. Rogers, 2014 COA 110, ___ P.3d ___. Accordingly, we also reinstate the district court's restitution award in Rogers.

I. Facts and Procedural History

¶3 This opinion consolidates two unrelated sexual assault cases. In El Paso County District Court Case No. 09CR1165, the People alleged that Adam Michael Teague sexually assaulted the victim while she was asleep. During a police interview, Teague denied any sexual contact with the victim, yet the morning following that denial, aSANE exam of the victim revealed possible sexual activity. The People then charged Teague with sexual assault, and he later pled guilty to a misdemeanor offense resulting in probation.

¶4 In Arapahoe County District Court Case No. 09CR2049, the People alleged that Bobby Nicky Rogers offered the victim a ride in his car, drove her behind a building, and forced her, at knifepoint, to perform oral sex on him. The victim reported the assault, received a SANE exam, and later identified Rogers as her assailant. He later pled guilty to attempted sexual assault in return for a stipulated four-year term of sex offender intensive supervised probation.

¶5 The People in both cases sought to recover the costs of the SANE exams as restitution under sections 18-1.3-601 to -603, C.R.S. (2016). Teague and Rogers objected, and the trial court in each case awarded the People the requested cost of the exam, totaling $702.27 to be paid to the Colorado Springs Police Department in Teague's case and $500.00 to be paid to the Aurora Police Department in Rogers's.

¶6 Teague and Rogers appealed, each of them arguing that the expense of a SANE exam is not an "extraordinary direct public . . . investigative cost[]" as described in section 18-1.3-602(3)(b)¹ and recoverable under section 18-1.3-603. In an unpublished opinion, the division hearing Teague's appeal affirmed the restitution award. Teague, slip op. at 8. Beginning from a dictionary definition of "extraordinary," the divisionconcluded that the cost of a SANE exam satisfies the statute. Id. at 4-6. It reasoned that (1) the exams require medical professionals, not law enforcement personnel, to collect evidence, and (2) other statutes had defined extraordinary costs to include otherwise common expenses. Id. The division in Rogers's case reached the opposite result. Rogers, ¶ 18. Operating from the same definition used in Teague, the division in Rogers concluded SANE exams do not create extraordinary costs because law enforcement typically uses them to gather evidence. Id. at ¶¶ 16-18.

¶7 Teague and the People each sought our review of the decisions against them, and we granted certiorari in both cases.²

II. Standard of Review and Rules of Statutory Interpretation

¶8 The issue presented requires us to interpret the term "extraordinary," and this court reviews such questions of statutory construction de novo, People v. Padilla-Lopez, 2012 CO 49, ¶ 7, 279 P.3d 651, 653. In construing a statute, we aim to give effect to the General Assembly's purpose in enacting it. Dubois v. People, 211 P.3d 41, 43 (Colo. 2009). To do so, we accord statutory words and phrases their plain and ordinary meanings. Padilla-Lopez, ¶ 7, 279 P.3d at 653. When the language of the statute is clear and we can discern the legislative intent with certainty, we need not resort to other tools of statutory interpretation. Dubois, 211 P.3d at 43.

III. Analysis

¶9 The parties in these cases have raised various arguments for and against restitution, but at bottom they ask a straightforward question: is the expense of a SANE exam an extraordinary direct public investigative cost? We answer in three parts. First, we supply some background on the SANE exam itself, outlining its functions and components. Second, we turn to the statute and apply its language to SANE exams as described. Third, we determine that the expenses associated with those exams are in fact an extraordinary direct public investigative cost and conclude the state is entitled to recover them.

A. SANE Examinations Necessarily Serve a Dual Purpose

¶10 The SANE examination process consists of multiple steps, some of them evidentiary and some of them medical in nature. Whatever the function of a given step, however, medical personnel oversee that process in its entirety, from providing care to (potentially) testifying in a resulting case.

¶11 At the outset, initial responders, who may not be examiners themselves, must evaluate and respond to any serious or life-threatening injuries while also attempting to maximize evidence preservation. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women, NCJ 228119, A National Protocol for Sexual Assault Forensic Examinations Adults/Adolescents 8-9 (2d ed. 2013), https://perma.cc/P3WF-ZTW6. From there, examiners turn to evidentiary concerns within the scope of the victim's informed consent, documenting the victim's forensic medical history, taking photographs, and collecting and documenting physical evidence. Id. at 9-10. The examiner may alsoexplore the victim's concerns about sexually transmitted infections and pregnancy, encouraging testing and counseling as needed. Id. at 10. Finally, before discharge, health care personnel may need to coordinate both follow-up care and activities requiring law enforcement involvement. Id. at 11.

¶12 As this overview suggests, a SANE examination serves not only as an evidence-gathering tool for law enforcement but also as a source of comprehensive care for victims. The U.S. Department of Justice report detailing the protocol for conducting SANE exams has summarized those dual functions, noting first that "[a] timely, high-quality medical forensic examination can potentially validate and address sexual assault patients' concerns, minimize the trauma they may experience, and promote their healing." Id. at 4 (footnote omitted). The report continues, "At the same time, [a SANE exam] can increase the likelihood that evidence collected will aid in criminal case investigation, resulting in perpetrators being held accountable and further sexual violence prevented." Id.

¶13 Our court of appeals has made a similar observation regarding the exams' dual roles. In People v. Montanez, the court noted that "A SANE 'is responsible for completing the entire sexual assault evidentiary exam including crisis intervention, STD prevention, pregnancy risk evaluation and interception, collection of forensic evidence, and referrals for additional support and...