People v. Hernandez
250 P.3d 568
Colo.2011Background
- Accident in Colorado Springs involving Hernandez, his girlfriend, and two friends; girlfriend claimed she was driving and provided identifying information for the driver at the scene.
- Police collected driver information from the girlfriend on a report listing Hernandez in the passenger section; Hernandez helped fill out the form.
- Girlfriend later recanted and told officers Hernandez was the driver; People charged Hernandez with leaving the scene under 42-4-1601(1) and 42-4-1603(1).
- Trial evidence focused on whether Hernandez failed to affirmatively identify himself as the driver; the jury convicted Hernandez and habitual-offender status was applied.
- Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the statute did not require an affirmative identification as the driver; People petitioned for certiorari.
- Supreme Court of Colorado held that the driver must affirmatively identify himself as the driver before leaving the scene when not otherwise reasonably apparent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether driver identification is required to leave the scene. | People: statute requires driver information and the driver’s role; identification is implied by the driver-specific duties. | Hernandez: disclosure of name/address/vehicle info suffices; no affirmative driver-identity duty. | Yes; driver must identify as the driver when not reasonably apparent. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Rickstrew, 775 P.2d 570 (Colo. 1989) (purpose includes exchanging information to identify drivers)
- People v. Home Ins. Co., 197 Colo. 260 (Colo. 1979) (cannot extend criminal liability beyond express terms)
- People v. Mullady, 178 A.D.2d 614 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991) (statute does not expressly require identification; cannot infer otherwise)
- People v. McNeese, 892 P.2d 304 (Colo. 1995) (implicit elements may be read to effect statutory purpose)
- State v. Nazarian, 125 Conn.App. 489, 8 A.3d 565 (Conn. App. 2010) (driver identity required to comply with 'operator' obligations)
- Wuteska, 735 N.W.2d 576 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007) (driver must identify operator to satisfy statutory duties)