Berges v. County Court of Douglas County, 2016 COA 146

Seven health-care professionals (doctors, social workers) were criminally charged in Douglas County for willfully failing to report suspected child abuse under § 19-3-304 (a misdemeanor). Charges were filed by a sheriff’s detective; the district attorney later assumed prosecution.
Plaintiffs moved in county court to dismiss, arguing § 19-3-206 (which provides that in “all proceedings brought under this article, the petitioner shall be represented by a county attorney…”) strips district attorneys of authority to prosecute § 19-3-304 violations.
The county court denied dismissal, concluding article 3 “proceedings” are civil dependency-and-neglect actions, not criminal prosecutions of mandatory reporters.
Plaintiffs sought Rule 106(a)(4) review in district court; the district court upheld the county court’s interpretation and denied relief. Plaintiffs appealed.
The Court of Appeals reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and framed the question whether criminal prosecutions under § 19-3-304 are “proceedings brought under” article 3 such that county attorneys have exclusive authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 19-3-206 strips district attorneys of authority to prosecute willful failures-to-report under § 19-3-304	§ 19-3-206’s phrase “all proceedings brought under this article” includes prosecutions under § 19-3-304; thus only county attorneys may prosecute	Article 3’s “proceedings” are civil dependency-and-neglect petitions and related juvenile matters; § 19-3-304 defines a criminal offense governed by the Criminal Code and does not create an article 3 proceeding	Held: No. Criminal prosecutions under § 19-3-304 are not proceedings brought under article 3; district attorneys retain authority to prosecute

H.B. v. Lake County Dist. Court, 819 P.2d 499 (Colo. 1991) (construing §§ 19-3-206 and 19-3-207 to separate the roles of county attorneys in article 3 proceedings from district attorneys in criminal prosecutions)
Harris v. Jefferson Cty. Court, 808 P.2d 364 (Colo. App. 1991) (district attorneys generally have authority to initiate prosecutions unless statute expressly assigns authority elsewhere)
County of Adams v. Hibbard, 918 P.2d 212 (Colo. 1996) (county attorneys ordinarily represent the county in civil matters, supporting a civil/juvenile role distinct from criminal prosecution)
L.G. v. People, 890 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1995) (dependency-and-neglect proceedings focus on child protection and family restoration, not punishment)
Medberry v. People, 108 P.2d 243 (Colo. 1940) (historical description of county attorneys’ civil role separate from district attorneys’ criminal prosecutions)
People v. Taylor, 732 P.2d 1172 (Colo. 1987) (recognizing district attorney’s authority to prosecute crimes within the judicial district)