2013 COA 159
Colo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Denver Dept. of Human Services filed a dependency/neglect petition for J.J.M., an eight‑month‑old, alleging severe head injuries (retinal hemorrhage, subdural hematoma, brain bleeds) inconsistent with father's explanation and that father used marijuana.
- Father denied dependency/neglect and demanded a jury trial.
- A three‑day jury trial was held; the jury returned a verdict leading the juvenile court to adjudicate the child dependent and neglected.
- Before voir dire, the juvenile court allocated peremptory challenges: 3 to father and mother (collectively as respondents), 3 to the Department, and 3 to the guardian ad litem (GAL), totaling nine.
- Father appealed, arguing the juvenile court erred in allocating peremptory challenges under Colorado Rule of Juvenile Procedure 4.8(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether peremptory challenges must be allocated individually to each respondent or collectively among "all respondents" under C.R.J.P. 4.8(b) | Father: Each respondent should receive individual peremptory challenges (i.e., father and mother each get three) | Juvenile court/Department: Rule grants three peremptory challenges to "all respondents" collectively; father and mother share three | Held: Rule language grants three peremptory challenges to "all respondents" collectively; no error in allocation |
| Whether aligned parties (Department and GAL) must share peremptory challenges when taking the same side | Father: Because Department and GAL were aligned, they should share or otherwise not each get separate challenges | Juvenile court/Department: C.R.J.P. 4.8(b) expressly gives three challenges to each of Department and GAL regardless of alignment | Held: Rule expressly provides three each to Department and GAL; alignment does not alter allocation; no discretion to reallocate |
Key Cases Cited
- Blades v. DaFoe, 704 P.2d 817 (Colo. 1985) (no constitutional right to peremptory challenges)
- City & Cnty. of Broomfield v. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co., 239 P.3d 1270 (Colo. 2010) (rules of procedure interpreted by plain meaning; de novo review)
- Morgan Cnty. Dept. of Soc. Servs. v. J.A.C., 791 P.2d 1157 (Colo. App. 1989) (discussing alignment and peremptory challenge allocation under C.R.C.P. 47)
- Koustas Realty, Inc. v. Regency Square P'ship, 724 P.2d 97 (Colo. App. 1986) (disproportionate peremptory challenges create tactical advantage)
- Fieger v. E. Natl Bank, 710 P.2d 1134 (Colo. App. 1985) (court lacks discretion to increase peremptory challenges beyond rule)
- Hodges v. People, 158 P.3d 922 (Colo. 2007) ("shall" denotes mandatory command, not discretion)