Higgins v. People
2016 CO 68
| Colo. | 2016Background
- Brooke Higgins, initially a juvenile respondent, agreed (through counsel) to a state-administered mental health assessment before a juvenile magistrate.
- The district attorney later dismissed juvenile charges and directly filed adult charges (two counts of conspiracy to commit murder).
- Higgins requested and the trial court granted a reverse-transfer hearing to decide whether she should remain in adult court.
- Higgins (with new counsel) moved to suppress the earlier mental health assessment and to disqualify the trial judge; the trial court denied both motions, relying on statutory authority to order the assessment.
- Higgins petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court under C.A.R. 21 arguing (1) trial courts lack authority to order state mental-health assessments for juveniles in reverse-transfer proceedings, and (2) the Constitution requires Fifth Amendment warnings before such assessments.
- The Supreme Court vacated the rule to show cause and remanded, declining to reach either issue on the merits because one was hypothetical and the other premature.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court may order a juvenile charged as an adult to undergo a state mental-health assessment for a reverse-transfer proceeding | Higgins: Such orders exceed statutory authority and are impermissible | People: Statute authorizes consideration of mental-health assessments; court may order one | Not decided here (issue was hypothetical in this case; answered in companion case Johnson) |
| Whether trial court must provide Fifth Amendment warnings before a court-ordered mental-health assessment | Higgins: Court must warn juveniles of self-incrimination rights before assessment; lack of warning requires suppression | People: No suppression; Higgins consented and had counsel present | Not decided here (Higgins consented while represented; Fifth Amendment claim premature) |
| Whether consent to evaluation was vitiated by ineffective assistance of counsel | Higgins: Counsel’s deficient performance nullified consent, requiring suppression | People: Consent stands; ineffective-assistance claim unproven | Not decided (ineffective-assistance claim premature; would require factfinding) |
| Whether appellate court should resolve factual disputes about counsel performance | Higgins: Appellate resolution appropriate to vindicate rights | People: Such determinations are factual and belong to trial court | Held: Appellate court declined to resolve factual issues; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Branch, 805 P.2d 1075 (Colo. 1991) (court must give warnings when defendant lacks counsel at evaluation)
- People in Interest of A.D.G., 895 P.2d 1067 (Colo. App. 1994) (court cannot force juvenile to submit to state psychological exam after objection)
- Carmichael v. People, 206 P.3d 800 (Colo. 2009) (sets standard for ineffective assistance review)
- Bostelman v. People, 162 P.3d 686 (Colo. 2007) (statutory and constitutional questions reviewed de novo)
- Tippett v. Johnson, 742 P.2d 314 (Colo. 1987) (court will not issue advisory opinions on hypothetical facts)
- People v. Matheny, 46 P.3d 453 (Colo. 2002) (appellate courts will not engage in factfinding required for ineffective-assistance findings)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel)