In re the People ex rel. W.P.
2013 CO 11
| Colo. | 2013Background
- Colorado Supreme Court accepts original proceeding to decide if an indigent alleged juvenile offender is entitled to a second competency evaluation at state expense as of right.
- W.P. (juvenile) faced juvenile delinquency charges for sexual assault and related acts in Adams County; district court initially ordered and later preliminarily found competency.
- Public defender sought a second competency evaluation at state expense under adult Code provisions 16-8.5-106 and -107, arguing the Juvenile Code is silent on the issue.
- District court denied applying the adult provisions to juveniles, citing the Children’s Code silence and lack of explicit applicability.
- Court granted a thirty-day continuance to allow CA.R. 21 petition; issue framed as whether W.P. is entitled to a second evaluation as of right under adult provisions.
- Opinion holds that the adult provisions do not apply in juvenile proceedings and that the juvenile framework requires evaluation only if the court doubts competency based on available information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do sections 16-8.5-106 and 16-8.5-107 apply in juvenile proceedings? | W.P. argues these provisions apply in juveniles because they are more specific and cross-referenced. | People contend the adult provisions do not apply to the Juvenile Code and there is no explicit cross-application. | No; adult provisions do not apply in juvenile proceedings. |
| Is a second competency evaluation available as a right in juvenile cases? | Indigent juvenile is entitled to a second evaluation at state expense as of right. | Not an automatic right; court discretion governs whether a second evaluation is warranted. | Not as of right; evaluation is required only if the court has doubts not satisfied by available information. |
| Does due process/equal protection require applying the adult statute to juveniles? | Extend adult rights to juveniles to ensure fair treatment. | Juvenile system serves welfare and rehabilitation; differs from adult system; no equal-protection violation. | No constitutional mandate to apply adult provisions; rational basis supports separate juvenile framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bloom v. People, 185 P.3d 797 (Colo. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for competency determinations; pre-HB 1392 framework referenced)
- People v. Mack, 638 P.2d 257 (Colo. 1981) (due process and competency statutes governing second evaluations; pre-HB 1392)
- A.C., IV v. People, 16 P.3d 240 (Colo. 2001) (juvenile justice system aims; civil nature of juvenile proceedings; parens patriae)
- Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966) (juvenile justice framework; rehabilitative goals over punitive goals)
- McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1971) (jury trials in juvenile proceedings not required; informal protective procedures preferred)
- S.A.S. v. Dist. Ct. in & for Jefferson Cnty., 623 P.2d 58 (Colo. 1981) (equal protection and due process considerations in juvenile context)
- People in the Interest of M.C., 774 P.2d 857 (Colo. 1989) (juvenile proceedings are civil; emphasis on welfare and rehabilitation)
- Flakes v. People, 153 P.3d 427 (Colo. 2007) (direct filing/statutory framework in juvenile context)