*1
statute,
will be
imposed under
sentence
Rummel,
"exceedingly rare."
445 U.S.
disap-
Accordingly, we
prove holding of the trial autho- appeals that such review was not Considering the facts of this
rized.
however, imposed we hold the sentences grossly disproportionate and thus
are not judgments imposed: and sentences
affirm the GRANT,Petitioner,
Jeron
The PEOPLE of the State of Respondent.
Colorado,
No. 008C799. Colorado,
Supreme Court
En Banc.
June 2002. *
Rehearing July Denied * grant BENDER would the Petition. HOBBS, Justice Justice MARTINEZ and Justice *2 Public Kaplan, Colorado State
David S. Defender, Cynthia Camp, Deputy State Pub- Denver, Colorado, Defender, Attorneys lic for Petitioner. General, Salazar, Attorney Katherine Ken General, Hansen, Ap- Attorney A. Assistant Section, Division, Justice pellate Criminal Denver, Colorado, Attorneys Respondent. Opinion KOURLIS delivered Justice the Court. Grant, People v. granted
We
certiorari
(Colo.App.2000),
interpret
out a statement and
it. The state-
I. Facts
implicated
ment
Grant in the murders. Dur-
events,
ing
parents
these
Grant's
remained
Police arrested Jeron Grant
connection
adjoining
they
room where
could
but
teenage boys.
see,
the murder of
Be-
two
not hear.
took
Crouch
Grant's written state-
juvenile,
was a
cause Grant
officers
parents
signed
to the
who
it without
parents
the arrival of
at
awaited
reading
contents. The officers then
interviewing
station
. him.
its
led
before
arrived,
stepfather
Grant's mother and
When
Grant back to the initial
interview room
him;
explained
joined
the officers
the reasons for Grant's
parents
where his
the officers
permission
requested
question
arrest and
later transferred Grant to Zebulon Pike Ju-
They
him about the murders.
Detention Center.
advised Grant
venile
parents
and his
Miranda
trial,
judge
'At
suppressed
this state-
Sheet,"
rights.
printed
On a
"Fact
the offi-
juvenile
ment as rendered in
information, pointed
cers filled in relevant
violation
statute,
statements
see
because
printed
out the Miranda
that were
it was
presence
taken outside the
of Grant's
bottom,
and had
Grant and his
both
parents and absent a written waiver. That
sign
they
parents
the form after
indicated
proceeding.
decision is not at issue in this
understanding.
began interviewing
The officers then
Grant
After the officers took Grant to the deten-
committing
in-
who denied
the murders and
center,
changes
tion
Crouch learned of
stead blamed thе crime on an individual
required
statements
statute that
Officer,
"Quick."
named
One
Detective written waiver for interviews conducted out-
Crouch,
told
he did not
Grant
believe the
presence
juvenile's parents.
side the
He
story
why
lying.
and asked Grant
he was
Grant,
decided to reinterview
this time in
thereafter,
Shortly
speak
Grant asked to
compliance with the statute. Crouch had his
with the officer alone.
asked
Crouch
Grant's
form,
prepare
office
a written waiver
and he
consent,
parents
they
for their
gave
which
arrangements
par-
made
for Grant and his
verbally,
writing.
parents
but not in
left
ents to return to the station. He did not tell
the interview room and waited across the
them the reasons for
second
interview.
hall.
pick
When Crouch arrived at the center to
Grant;
Crouch resumed the interview with
interview,
up Grant for the second
Grant
however,
deny
continued to
showed the detective the business card of a
accepted
involvement. He
Crouch's offer to
him,
public
sup-
defender and told
"I'm not
polygraph
take a
test. Crouch and Grant
posed
anyone
to talk to
until
tomorrow."
polygraph
then moved into the
room while
public
Crouch asked whether
defender
parents
adjoining
moved into an
him;
represented
responded
they
Grant
that he
room where
could watch. Before the
started,
Grant,
know,
polygraph
"signed
Crouch told
"You
did not
but that he had
some-
REPORTER, 3d SERIES
48 PACIFIC
Colo.
need not be
and that such waiver
the statute
“go
ahead
told Grant
thing.”2 Crouch
parents.
both
[police
sta-
with us down
and come
first-degree mur-
that,
jury acquitted Grant of
tion],”
be there.” A
“his folks would
mur-
der,
accessory to
him of
allegedly told the officers
but convicted
complied and
Grant
accessory manslaughter.
consent to
that he would
der and
during the drive
interview,
parents were
if his
but
second
appeals
affirmed.
[1] The court
present.
requires all waiv-
that the statute
court noted
-
at the
parties
arrived
When
writing,”
that it does not
“in
ers to be
station,
met alone
Grant
parents and the
that both the
specify
for several minutes
interview room
writing.
signatures to such
must affix their
family
then en-
“a
matter.” Crouch
discuss
“require-
that a
court went on
reason
permission to conduct
requested
tered
*4
separate and distinct
a
ment for
interview.
the second
requirement” in Colorado’s
signature
a
from
parents’ verbal
reсeived the
Crouch
When
Grant,
(citing
prevail over a interpretation literalist way utes in a that does not assume it encom- Lagae leads to an absurd result." v. Lack passes signatures. example, For in the fiеld ner, Thus, copyrights, music legislature chose the trywe general ascertain the intent of the followinglanguage: "A pay- contract for the assembly in promulgating state royalties by ment of the proprietor to a provision. ments statute and the waiver (a) copyright society owner or shall: Be in ambig When we deem the statute itself to be (b) writing; signed by Be parties." § 6- uous, statutory interpretation we look to 13-108(4), added). (emphasis analysis. tools to aid us governing statute entry and de- forcible Here, requires statute that a directs, tainer "The demand ... shall be accompanied by a parent making writing, made in specifying grounds police, statements unless the demandant's possession parent expressly right. Spe- waive that premises, such signed by and shall be cifically, the statute part: reads relevant *5 person claiming possession." § such 13-40- (1) No statements or a admissions of 106, (2001) added). 5 (emphasis CRS. nile a made as result of the custodial inter- These are two of a examples multitude of rogation ... shall be in. admissible evi- whereby legislature the has treated "in writ- against dence such unless a ing" separate as signa- distinct from a . present interrogation.... was at such Indeed, requirement. ture interpreting the phrase writing" "in assume a doeu- (5) [The and his or her superfluous renders separate the "sig- may expressly require- waive the nature" in used the above exam- express ment.... This waiver shall be in ples, an we are to avoid. interpretation See awwritingand only shall be obtained after People Swain, (Colo. 482 advisement ... of the 1998) ("[Interpretations that render statuto- prior taking to the of the custodial state- ry provisions superfluous should be avoid- 69 ment.... ed."). (2001) § 6 (emphasis C.R.S. add- hand, On the other Colorado statutes often ed). question The before this court is wheth- itself, contain phrase the "in writing" by er signed by written waiver accompanying without "signature" language. mother and stepfather, initialed but instances, In some of legislature those signed by himself, Grant satisfies this arguably writings intended signed. statutory requirement. We hold that it does. example, 4-2.5-309(5), For section 2 C.R.S. III. Statutory Language (2001), provides, "The interest of a lessor of Ambiguous Is (c) priority fixtures... has ... if: ... accord, Of his own but with the undisputed encumbrancer or owner has consented in parents, consent of his writing Grant Surely, decided to the lease. . .." in this re- the "written" signa- veal his consent should bear invоlvement in the murders outside Similarly, ture of the owner. parents' legislature earshot. In 1996 6-2- 1118), (2001),directs, 2 any per- C.R.S. "If amended the Children's Code to provide for son, situation; precisely writing oath, it and under added a waiver submits provision. attorney § See ch. general see. setting statement 1996 Colo. Laws forth Sess. 1635-86. The facts sufficient prima constitute a provision new .., directs facie "[this case of this article...." violation 19-2-511(5). writing." § waiver shall be in Again, it is difficult to conceive that Resorting plain to the meaning legislature of the statu- require a "writing" would under writing" used in this "in conclude that oath, as to be indifferent whether ambiguous. statute is
writing signed. however, times, re- At other Statutory Construction IV. in in- necessarily implicit quirement is not just history is one several Legislative appears alone. writing" "in stances ambig- to аid our resolution tools available governing unlawful example, in For statute 24-203, $ CRS. terms. uous assembly mandat- general telemarketing, (2001). "objective may also consider the return ed, availability and terms of "The attained," conse- "[the sought to be disclosed shall be privilege refund construction." Id. quences particular writing and in orally by telephone consumer committees hearings legislative in the promotional materi- advertising or (em- (2001) 6-1-304(2), provision § passage C.R.S. prior al...." added). appears in at issue example provision was but Another reveal that phasis (2001): overhaul of 4-2-609(1), part of a substantial small UCC, C.R.S. Originally, proposed insecurity Children's Code. grounds "When reasonable language, contained of ei- amendment performance respect arise with provisions of subsec- "Notwithstanding the writing may in demand party, the other ther (1) section, of this tion performance...." of due adequate assurance added.) 8-4-105(4), parent, guardian, § her See also (Emphasis ("Everyemployershallat least require- may expressly waive custodian Hearings H.B. 96-1005 Before employee an ment." monthly ... furnish to each Judiciary, 60th on the writing showing the House Committee pay itemized statement ....") (in Assembly, Regular Session Second following General following this and debate, (Jan. 25, 1996). added); almost no With emphases have quotations, been 8-4-120(1), Judiciary Com- provision passed the House ("Ascertain Id. mittee that form. migratory to each labor- disclose *6 er, migratory language in a which committee, judiciary In the Senate's 17-22.5-408(6), fluent...."); is laborer more attention. prоvision received somewhat (2001) ("[Tihe parole board of state H.B. Before the Senate Hearings on 96-1005 parole if modify the conditions of shall Judiciary, 60th General Committee require to exist then shown cireumstances (Apr. Assembly, Regular Session Second modifications, cireumstances shall which such member, 1996). advocating committee One parole writing, or revoke the forth in be set amendment, ju- noted that proposed for the of the offender to order the return and talking frequently are uncomfortable veniles ...."); § 27-10.3- place of confinement misdeeds, especially sexual about (2001)("At 104(1)(b), time crimes, that the of their front if by agency, health the mental assessment necessary them the to afford denied, mental are residential services cooperate police, with opportunity to family, both agency shall advise the health parents, juvenile, together with his or her writing, appeal process orally and in Id. decided to do so. them."). None of these examples availableto from the Colorado Crimi representative that necessarily to conclude would lead one Bar, hearing, testifying at the nal Defense signed. be must that, as it committee convinced the Senate's stood, use of the legislature's provision appeared to allow varied the waiver first, then interrogate juvenile unequivocally police to writing" "in does not phrase The com garner parent's consent. accompany later signature answer whether Bar's recom accepted the Defense interpreta mittee writing. multiple such Where require a written reasonable, that the law may find a statute's mendation are we tions Nieto, prior to the custodial place be in v. 998 waiver language ambiguous. State interrogation.4 Id. Accordingly, we P.2d entirety: language "This in its adopted representa- tive's the CCDB 4. The committee actually enforcement juvenile testimony suggests This afforded an the "written waiv- attempt allay er" was an to opportunity fears to consult with an adult before police might undermine pro- the waiver undertook the interroga- purpose by securing vision's tion. general We believe assembly also they already interrogated after had sought to parent ensure By ensuring nile. the consultation fully with the were aware of scopе and content of prior took place interrogation, to rights they were waiving and impress to parties' and with the written consent to upon importance them the rights. of those it, prove legislature sought safeguard to appeals The court of ruled that uninformed, juveniles unprotected from an written document in this case satisfied the interrogation, affording while still them the statute because it was "attributable" opportunity cooperate to without (and parents, assumedly). exposing juvenile's parents to the details agree with this rationale. There exist a host legislative history does not crimes. circumstances, in addition to or separate any specific reveal intent on behalf of the signatures, from that bear on the authentici lawmakers require, require, or not to ty hold, of a therefore, written document. We part of the written waiver. although clearly it would preferable, be previously We have gen observed that the express, written waiver need not neces assembly eral this statute to the Chil added sarily satisfy order to subsection juveniles dren's Code to afford some shelter (5) of section 19-2-511 long so as the cireum- rigors from the interrogation. custodial surrounding stances clearly that waiver dem purpose enacting "[The the [Juvenile onstrate that the parent agreed child and juve statute statements] ensure that a statutory rights. waive their during police interrogation nile is advised concerning counseled her Fifth Appliéation v. right Amendment against self-incrimination We turn now to the cireum- Sixth Amendment to counsel may stances that reliability bear on the someone whose interests are consistent with 19-2-511(5). waiver under section Certainly, S.M.D., People those of the child." v. signatures by both would (Colo.1994); People see also strong constitute evidence of the written Raibon, 50 (Colo.App.1992) credibility. waiver's Uncontroverted testi (1)] ("[Llegislative purpose [of subsection mony verbally consented to provide opportunity minor an *7 waiver, the or audio videotape or with the consult with parent guardian or before content, along same with the deciding whether to assert or to waive his or parent, support also would the waiver. her Fifth rights."). Amendment The erux of statute, then, juvenile the is that have However, a trial may court also access to an help adult who will safeguard examine the purportedly cireumstances that the child's constitutional in a custodial gave example, where, rise to the waiver: for interrogation context. when, and at stage proceedings what in the upon Based the cumulative intent of the writing appeared; whether statute, as reflected in its parent agreed and the writing to the simulta legislative history, we legis- neously conclude that the separately; or whether their consent lature never intended that signed waivers not garnered person; they whether were by parent both the consult; ample opportunity should be offered wheth consult, they se, er privately per thereby did found invalid rendering or with the sub- sequent Rather, statements police present; inadmissible. parties whether were general assembly writing intended the aware that the written waiver was a statuto evidence, serve as physical proof ry requirement; that law any whether there existed waiver shall be in rights prior shall be obtained custodian of the after taking full advisement by and his of the custodial statement law en- parent, guardian, or her § forcement official." See 19-2-511. HOBBS, dissenting: Justice present, were if signatures, that evidence evidence coerced; other and whether majority ac- The respectfully dissent. I validity undermines supports "re- knowledges that list, exhaustive clearly not This is waiver. by a accompanied juvenile be that a quires particularities its own will have case as each police, making statements parent when credibility beаring on the expressly parent unless all (emphasis Maj. op. at 547. trial court should right." that The waive issue. examine relia- bearing on the added). majority cireumstances ac- relevant also agree. The I uphold it requires waiver a writ- bility the written knowledges that the statute I Maj. op. at 549. supported. appropriately to this effect. ten waiver holds that majority
agree. The then juve- parents, but not waiver the written that the written convinced are effectively nile, waived in this case signed recorded adequately case in this waiver to have a the statute juvenile's right under relinquish parents to and his of Grant intent interroga- during the present parent presence. parental statutory right disagree. Maj. at 550. I op. tion. were Here, stepfather mother and began. to a waiver give effect before The statute does present juvenile. not the consult with opportunity to They ample executed had present statutory right ex to have him, Detective Crouch The they did so. juve- interrogation is the custodial during rights to Grant the Miranda plained waive, may not be and this nile's twice, in fact. Both Grant parents, waiver, parents on his behalf. solely by his waived signed a Miranda (2001). 19-2-511(5), Jeron See voluntary and made was Grant statement waiver, sign, or initial not write Grant did rights. his constitutional compliance with on the face no indications it. There are operated statute juvenile statements adopted the that Jeron Grant this document acknowledge designed. We precisely as Therefore, there his own. waiver parents of оr his form failed to inform Grant writing in this juvenile express waiver no provision statutory written waiver case. However, interview. the second necessitated no factual consider there we also L. Grant about whether question whatsoever right, or to waive this sought Here A. The Written Waiver the contents disputed he whether Only The Parent's Is. Indeed, he insisted any respect. waiver in this case was not presence of interview outside upon the he nile's, or not regardless whether parents. majority as- instrument The written it. plainly juvenile's waiver to be the
sumes not-as parental only. a written Conclusion VI. - writ- acknowledges to be the law-a majority *8 sum, adopt per se In we decline in- parental juvenile and ten waiver. un- waivers requirement. Written signature a clear written not include did strument 19-2-511(5) necessarily need not der section (1) parent right to the statement have by parent(s) the signed be both juve- is the during interrogation present sur- juvenile long as the cireumstances (2) so of this having advised been nile's reliability. support its rounding it. juvenile expressly right, waives ap- court of judgment of the affirm the We . following: form stated the The waiver peals. WAIVER INTERVIEW
JUVENILE HOWELL, his or keeKH I, E. KATHY dissents, and Justice Justice HOBBS physical or custodian join parent/guardian/legal BENDER and Justice MARTINEZ requirement waive the may expressly the dissent. parent/guardian/legal physical or cus- (Colo.2002). construing "In statutory provi- sions, present during interrogation obligation of todian our is not policy make > give decisions rather full to the juvenile. effect legislative intent." Farmers Ins. Exch. v. express writing This waiver shall be in Inc., (Colo.1998). Bill Boom 961P.2d only shall be after full advisement obtained ascertain give effect to the juvenile par- and his or kerKH intent of the Assembly, not second General ent/guardian/legal physical or custodian of guess judgment. its Id. juvenile's rights prior taking Here, plain language of the statute is by the custodial statement a law enforce- unambiguous. parent's clear and presence ment official. , during 1 custodial interrogation ju of a requirement If expressly waived, said mandatory. venile People, Nicholas v. juvenile statements or admissions of the Statements or by shall not be inadmissible in evidence juvenile admissions of a obtained in violation reason of the absence of the of this are rule inadmissible. See 19-2- parent/guardian/legal physical or (2001). 511(1), custodian Section during intеrrogation. (6) exceptions contain two to this manda (5) tory requirement: subsection allows a form The waiver next contained a line re- parent juvenile parent's to waive the questing the name and date of birth of the (6) presence writing, pro and subsection juvenile, apparently by which was filled in good vides a faith and reasonable reliance Finally, officer. the form con- exception juvenile when the makes a deliber tained a Sign- line for the "Person misrepresentation ate affecting applica ing the requesting Waiver" and line bility mandatory parental presence. Sec signing person's juve- "Relationship" to the 19-1-511(5) provides: tion . Kathy nile. E. Howell the form and Notwithstanding provisions of subsec- juvenile relationship stated her section, tion juvenile of this "mother." may or her ... expressly waive the Nowhere on the a space document does requirement pres- ... be juvenile accep- exist to indicate his during ent rejection tance or of the waiver. This ac- nile. This waiver shall be in writ- language cords with the entire and tenor of ing and shall be obtained after contemplates only the document. It a writ- advisement of the and his or her parental ten waiver. The first line of the If parent. requirement express- said states, "I, waiver form KATHY E. HOW- waived, ly statements or admissions of the ELL, parent /guardian/legal physical or shall be inadmissible in evi- may expressly require- custodian waive the by dence reason of the absence of the parent/guardian/legal phys- or parent. Juvenile's ical present during interroga- custodian be 19-2-511(6) provides: Section added.) juvenile" tion (Emphasis Notwithstanding of subsec- provisions unequivocal purpose The clear and of this section, tion of this statements or ad- document Kathy was to obtain and record missions of a shall not be inad- Howell's written not her son's. into missible evidence reason of the comply parent, here does not guardian, absence 19-2-511(5). custodian, Where the if the makes unambiguous, is clear "there is misrepresentations affect- deliberate no need to resort to interpretive rules of ing applicability requirements *9 statutory official, construction." Pierson v. Black this section and law enforcement Inc., Canyon 1215, Aggregates, acting good 48 P.8d 1218 in faith and in reasonable reli- "parent" 19-2-511(5). 1. I use thе term in this dissent to refer dian" as set forth in section "parent, guardian, legal physical to custo- 552 the General misrepresentation, statutory mandate reflects this
ance on such deliberate
juveniles gener-
that
Assembly's recognition
interrogation of the
custodial
conducts a
legal
important
make
capacity to
ally lack the
the re-
comply
that does
alone."); People in the Interest
(1)
this see-
decisions
of
subsection
quirements of
of
'
(Colo.1981)("The
1118,
GL.,
1120
P.2d
631
tion.
provide
tois
of
purpose
[the]
19-2-511(6)
inap-
exception is
The section
during police
guidance
parental
child with
langitage
plain
the
and
plicable to
any waiver
to ensure that
interrogation, and
unambiguous.
Fifth Amendment
child's
of the
"express waiver"
must be
There
Amend-
and Sixth
agаinst self-incrimination
by
requirement
presence
mandatory parental
knowingly
will be made
right to counsel
ment
parent, guardian,
or her
"juvenile and his
Saiz,
P.2d at 19-20.
intelligently.");
620
and
custodian,"
be
and it "shall
legal
(2001)(em-
19-2-511,
impresses
requirement
§
The written waiver
writing."
in
(1)
and the
parent
upon
added).
'shall
of the term
"The use
phasis
parental pres-
importance of the
mandatory
Nich-
rule is
that the
indicates
(2)
parent and
both
right, and
alerts
ence
olas,
1216.
978P.2dat
right can have
of this
juvenile that waiver
inbe
"shall
words that
consequences. The evident
serious
ju-
unambiguous:
writing"
plain
are
and
underlying
properly
written
purpose
to waive
agreement
parent's
venile and the
(1)
is to:
solemnize
parental waiver
nile and
pres-
juvenile's right to have
remind the
of the
the occasion
aрpear on
interrogation must
during the
ent
juvenile,
right belongs to the
police
instrument.
face of the written
op-
evidentiary
proof
provide
view,
court,
give effect
my
in
should
and the waiv-
review the waiver
portunity to
purpose:
evident
writing" requirement's
"in
validity.
er's
subjected to
who are
juveniles
protect
to
during
juvenile's parents
interrogation."
police
The absence
significant
paren-
Assembly enacted
The General
than
event,
equal
greater
to or
importance
require
children
presence
tal
rule because
Seq,
requiring signatures.
legal events
other
and assistance
protection
additional
145,
Gall,
158
People
830 P.3d
eg.,
v.
investi-
who are
by police officers
confronted
warrant
(Colo.2001)(holding
that
search
Nicholas,
acts.
gаting them for criminal
See
by
signed or sworn
must be
forms
1218-19;
Legler, 969
People v.
at
973 P.2d
(2001)(waiv-
18-1-405(4),
affiant);
6
§
C.R.S.
that
(Colo.1998)(stating
P.2d
speedy trial and
statutory right
er of
require-
presence
purpose of the parental
must be
agreement
to continuance
necessary
provide
additional
ment was
1511-502,
defendant;};
5 CRS.
Amend-
juvenile's Fifth
assurances
(2001)(a
must be reduced
will
will be
against
self-inerimination
testator); §
signed by the
Saiz,
him); People
620 P.2d
v.
afforded to
(2001)(contracts
land
interest
Maes,
(Colo.1980);People
194 Colo.
v.
19-20
memorandum).
by signed
evidenced
must be
(1977)(holding
285, 287,
view,
must clear-
my
the written waiver
In
of the Children's
purpose
"the clear
juvenile's assent
parent's
for the
ly
to a
call
special protection
to afford a
Code is
it,
juvenile as well as the
custody because
who is in
This
writing as their own.
acts").
adopt the
pres- must
parental
alleged criminal
juvenile and
usually
by the
most
occur
waivers
guards against
invalid
ence rule
would
signing the instrument.
parent both
statutory rights
constitutional
important
However,
not examine
absence
we need
Nick-
acting without assistance.
by minors
("The
here, because the
olas,
plain language of of Jeron
973P.2d at 1218
meaning
phrase
plain
perceive
to be
(Colo.
Grant,
See People
or,
worst,
J., concurring
part
writing'
dis-
(Roy,
at
render
App.2000)
'shall
senting
part)('However,
I am concerned
meaningless.").
phrase
what
I
majority's
will,
best,
dilute
opinion
*10
is invalid on
face. The
per
waiver
its
511 mandated a
inadmissibility.
se rule of
Nicholas,
Colorado,
the instrument does not contain a clear writ-
In this it is more than
probable that admitting the error Jeron being accessory by
Grant's confession to
disposing shotgun contributed to his accessory. People,
conviction for Tevlin v. The error substantially
could have influenced the ver proceedings.
dict and affected the fairness of the
vlin,
Therefore,
Te stating Jeron Grant's confession that he
helped dispose shotgun was not harm significant probability
less because there is a substantially admitted statement in Salcedo, jury's
fluenced the verdict. 841.
IL.
Accordingly, respectfully I dissent. I judgment
would reverse the of the court of
appeals.
I am authorized state that Justice join
MARTINEZ and Justice BENDER
this dissent. WHITAKER, Petitioner,
David PEOPLE of State of
Colorado, Respondent.
No. 00SC866. Colorado,
Supreme Court
En Banc. 3, 2002.
June
As Rehearing Modified on Denial of July
June 24 and