People Ex Rel. Sxm
271 P.3d 1124
Colo. Ct. App.2011Background
- In June 2010, S.X.M. was removed from TM's care after a report that TM had sexual contact with the child and other inappropriate actions occurred.
- A jury trial on dependency and neglect was scheduled for February 2011; LCDHS moved to allow the child to testify via CCTV but not in TM's presence, citing risk of trauma and a no-contact order.
- TM opposed CCTV; LCDHS relied on expert therapy testimony and GAL input that testimony in TM's presence would traumatize the child and that limiting TM's presence balanced cross-examination and protection.
- The court granted CCTV for the child's testimony with TM in the courtroom and real-time attorney communication; jury instructions proposed to use past tense regarding lack of proper parental care and injurious environment.
- The court instructed the jury using past tense for those questions, while providing other present-tense definitions; the child testified and the jury found in the affirmative to both questions, adjudicating the child dependent and neglected.
- TM appeals, challenging confrontation/fundamental fairness and the statutory-interpretation basis for adjudication; the appellate court affirms, addressing confrontation, statutory interpretation, and instruction sufficiency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did CCTV testimony violate TM's confrontation rights or due process? | TM contends he has a fundamental right to face his accuser in civil proceedings. | People argues no constitutional right to confrontation in civil dependency cases and the procedure was fair. | Procedure found fundamentally fair and constitutional. |
| Do the jury instructions using past tense comply with 19-3-102 and support the adjudication? | TM argues past tense misstates the law and misleads regarding present status. | People argues past tense, with supporting present-tense definitions, adequately informs the jury. | Instructions, read as a whole, were not misleading and supported the adjudication. |
| Did the jury's findings and the court's interpretation of 19-3-102(1)(b) and (c) provide proper jurisdiction? | TM claims lack of present findings and improper focus on past harm undermines jurisdiction. | People argues the statute allows past harm to support adjudication and future harm to guide continued welfare. | Interpreting 19-3-102 to include present or future harm; findings supported continued jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1990) (recognizes child traumatized testimony may be taken out of defendant's presence in certain cases)
- People in Interest of C.G., 885 P.2d 355 (Colo.App.1994) (civil dependency not require right of confrontation)
- People in Interest of V.M.R., 768 P.2d 1268 (Colo.App.1989) (Sixth Amendment confrontation applies to criminal cases; not extended to civil actions)
- People v. Mosley, 167 P.3d 157 (Colo.App.2007) (closed-circuit testimony for traumatized child consistent with right to confrontation in criminal context)
- Krueger v. Ary, 205 P.3d 1150 (Colo.2009) (trial court has broad discretion over jury instructions and reasonable discretion in form)