The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Petitioner v. Richard Anthony HERNANDEZ, Respondent.
No. 09SC615.
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.
April 11, 2011.
Rehearing Denied May 9, 2011.
250 P.3d 568
Douglas K. Wilson, Public Defender, Sarah A. Kellogg, Deputy Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, Attorneys for Respondent.
Justice MARQUEZ delivered the Opinion of the Court.
The issue raised in this case is whether a defendant may be convicted for leaving the scene of an accident based solely on his failure to identify himself to authorities at the scene as the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident.1
The defendant was convicted of violating sections
I. Factual and Procedural History
This case concerns an accident in which the identity of the driver was not readily apparent from the circumstances. In the early morning hours of September 18, 2005, defendant Richard Hernandez, his girlfriend, and two other friends left a party in Colorado Springs. They were traveling in the girlfriend‘s sport utility vehicle (“SUV“). A few blocks from the party, the SUV made a left turn and collided with an oncoming car, severely injuring its occupants. Another driver witnessed the accident and immediately summoned help. Police and an off-duty paramedic arrived at the scene within minutes and rendered medical aid. When authorities arrived, the SUV occupants were outside the vehicle. Officers asked who was driving the SUV. Hernandez‘s girlfriend told them she was the driver. She provided a written statement listing herself as the driver and including her name, address, driver‘s license number, and vehicle registration number. On the form provided, she listed Hernandez‘s name and address in the “passenger” section. At trial, the girlfriend testified that Hernandez helped her fill out the form and had provided his contact information.
Hernandez remained at the scene until his girlfriend was taken for sobriety testing. Officers did not ask him to provide his license or any additional information, and did not request that he stay longer. His girlfriend was charged with driving while intoxicated.
A few months later, Hernandez‘s girlfriend recanted her story and told officers that Hernandez had been driving the SUV at the time of the accident. The People then charged Hernandez with leaving the scene of an acci
At trial, the prosecution urged the jury to find Hernandez guilty, among other reasons, “for not saying he was the driver.” Hernandez asserted he was not guilty because (1) he was not the driver, and (2) in any event, he complied with the statutory requirements. At the close of the People‘s evidence, Hernandez moved for judgment of acquittal contending the People had failed to present “a prima facie case” that he had not complied with the express statutory requirements. The trial court denied the motion. Ultimately, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The trial court subsequently found Hernandez to be an habitual offender and sentenced him to twelve years in the Department of Corrections.5
On appeal, Hernandez did not contest that he was the driver of the SUV. Instead, he claimed the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for leaving the scene of an accident because he had, in fact, provided his name and address, and section
The court reasoned that the plain language of section
The People petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review the court of appeals’ decision. We reverse and remand with directions.
II. Analysis
The issue before us is whether sections
A. Standard of Review
In our de novo review of a statute, our “fundamental responsibility” is to deter
B. Statutory Construction
Section
Although section
1. Statutory Language
For purposes of Colorado‘s Uniform Motor Vehicle Law, a “driver” is defined as a person “who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.”
We conclude that the express language of section
2. Statutory Scheme
The broader statutory scheme here supports our interpretation of the specific language of section
3. Legislative Purpose
Our interpretation of section
In People v. Rickstrew, we stated that in enacting sections
Here, the court of appeals interpreted our prior pronouncements to conclude the “twin purposes” of the statutes are to “(1) minimize the harm that may result from a driver fleeing the scene of the accident, and (2) ensure social order by penalizing drivers who do not stop at accident scenes.” Hernandez, 224 P.3d at 347. We disagree with the court of appeals’ limited characterization of the General Assembly‘s purpose and intent in enacting these provisions. By focusing on the concerns of rendering aid and penalizing drivers who flee the scene, the court of appeals’ decision diminishes the distinct and equally important legislative purpose of requiring the exchange of driver information. See Rickstrew, 775 P.2d at 575 (the gravamen of the statute in part is “to exchange information“). As such, the court of appeals’ view fails to give effect to all parts of the statute. See
The requirement to exchange driver information is distinct from the requirement to render aid. A driver involved in an accident need not admit his role as driver in order to provide reasonable assistance to those injured. Indeed, it is unnecessary to require a driver to provide any identifying information whatsoever if the purpose of the statute is simply to obtain reasonable assistance. As for penalizing drivers who fail to remain at the scene and render reasonable assistance, the requirement to exchange driver informa
Instead, the mandatory disclosure requirements imposed on drivers in section
We have previously observed that the provisions of the traffic code aim to advance the public safety interest in regulating the “dangerous activity” of driving. Manzo, 144 P.3d at 556 (quoting People v. Ellison, 14 P.3d 1034, 1039 (Colo. 2000)). In enacting the disclosure provisions at issue here, the legislature intended to “advance the state‘s interest in promoting driver responsibility.” Manzo, 144 P.3d at 556. Logically, “driver responsibility” is promoted by regulating drivers as opposed to passengers or other witnesses.
In short, by imposing disclosure obligations on the driver alone and by referring repeatedly to information concerning “the driver,” the statute reflects the General Assembly‘s intent to promote driver responsibility by requiring “the driver” of the vehicle involved in the accident to identify himself and his role in the accident as the driver. Consequently, it cannot be said that the purpose of the statute is fulfilled where a driver simply provides contact information while obfuscating his role as the driver. See, e.g., Lumbardy v. People, 625 P.2d 1026, 1027 (Colo. 1981) (describing “identical” Arizona “hit and run” statute and observing that the “‘gist of the offense is in concealing, or attempting to conceal the identity of one involved in an automobile accident wherein personal injuries are sustained‘“) (quoting State v. Milligan, 87 Ariz. 165, 349 P.2d 180, 183 (1960)). Such a result does not advance the public safety interest in regulating the dangerous activity of driving, nor does it fulfill the General Assembly‘s intent to promote driver responsibility by identifying drivers who are involved in accidents causing injury to others. To the contrary, allowing a driver to conceal his role as the driver in an accident would thwart those very purposes.
C. Application
In most circumstances, the very act of providing the statutorily required disclosures will make a driver‘s role in the accident clear: a driver who furnishes his contact, license, or registration information in response to an officer or injured party‘s question, “Who was driving?” or in response to a request for driver information, thereby conveys that he was the driver. Similarly, other circumstances or non-verbal conduct of the driver often will make the driver‘s role obvious to those at the scene. Typically then, a driver who does not expressly announce “I am the driver” does not violate the statutory provisions because his role as driver will be reasonably apparent from the circumstances.
In this case, Hernandez, a driver who was physically capable of responding, failed to comply with the requirements of section
We are mindful that failure to comply with section
As a practical matter, then, criminal liability based solely on the failure to identify oneself as the driver under section
D. Defendant‘s Arguments
Hernandez would have us rely, as the court of appeals did, on People v. Mullady, 178 A.D.2d 614, 577 N.Y.S.2d 491, 491-92 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991), and the dissent in People v. Kroncke, 70 Cal. App. 4th 1535, 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 493, 508-10 (1999) (Corrigan, J., dissenting). We decline to do so.
In Mullady, the court simply stated, without analysis or explanation, that the New York traffic statute at issue “places no affirmative obligation upon a driver of a motor vehicle to identify himself as the driver.” 577 N.Y.S.2d at 492. This unsubstantiated conclusion does not dissuade us from adopting our own analysis.
In Kroncke, a driver whose passenger leapt from his moving car identified himself to officers as the driver of a nearby vehicle, but did not indicate his involvement in the accident (indeed, he denied ever having seen the victim before). Id. at 495-97. The majority opinion concluded that California‘s similar statute9 was “concerned not with just a driver and not with just a vehicle, but with the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident.” Id. at 500 (quoting People v. Monismith, 1 Cal. App. 3d 762, 81 Cal. Rptr. 879, 882 (1969)) (emphasis in original). It thus reasoned that, “to comply in a meaningful way with the statute, a driver must identify himself as the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident.” Id. The dissent, by contrast, contended the state‘s statute was designed only to secure information about personal identity; thus, a driver need not affirmatively disclose his status as the driver. Id. at 509-10.
We agree with the majority opinion in Kroncke and with other appellate courts that have considered similar statutes. See, e.g., Nazarian, 125 Conn. App. 489, 8 A.3d at 565-68 (where driver in accident provided his own contact information but affirmed false statements by his passenger claiming to be the driver, court concluded Connecticut‘s statute obligated driver to identify himself as the driver); Wuteska, 735 N.W.2d at 576-78 (where driver affirmed her husband‘s statement that he, rather than she, was the driver, court held that she could not comply with Wisconsin‘s statutory requirements without identifying that she was the operator of the vehicle involved in the accident). In our view, the statutory language of section
In both Boyd and Home Insurance Co., we refused to infer criminal liability where the statutes at issue did not expressly criminalize the violation of an authorized civil order. See Boyd, 642 P.2d at 3 (although statute empowered sheriff to issue an order closing a body of water, “no relevant statutory provision makes punishable as a crime a person‘s disobedience of [that order]“); Home Ins. Co., 197 Colo. at 262-63, 591 P.2d at 1037-38 (where General Assembly provided for the confidentiality of medical records but imposed no criminal sanctions for invasion of such confidentiality, violation could not be criminally prosecuted as theft). In those cases, we reasoned that although the General Assembly had “empower[ed] authorities to forbid certain acts,” the absence of any provision criminalizing the failure to abide by that prohibition precluded us from inferring criminal liability for such failure. Boyd, 642 P.2d at 3-4; see also Home Ins. Co., 197 Colo. at 263, 591 P.2d at 1037-38. The reasoning of those cases is inapposite here where the General Assembly has expressly criminalized failure to comply with the statutory disclosure provisions. See
III. Conclusion
We hold that sections
Justice MARTINEZ dissents.
Justice MARTINEZ, dissenting.
The sole issue before us is whether sections
On the one hand, the majority explains that the language of the statute, which repeatedly references “the driver” in section
Alternatively though, it is at least equally plausible that the General Assembly purposefully omitted the identification requirement
That is, the statutory text may reveal the General Assembly‘s intent to stop short of requiring drivers to admit to driving a vehicle involved in an accident. Instead, the General Assembly designed the statute to promote the “exchange of information” by merely requiring the driver to provide his name, address, and the registration number of his vehicle. After all, the General Assembly may have reasoned, it is not difficult to ascertain the identity of the driver through an accident-scene investigation.
In this light, there are at least two possible ways to interpret the General Assembly‘s intention as shown by its omission of an identification requirement from sections
In its zeal to punish drivers who provide misinformation to authorities, the majority too easily dismisses the fact that the General Assembly has already criminalized false reporting to authorities. Section
Quite simply then, the driver who obfuscates or deceptively conceals his identity as the driver can be prosecuted for a Class 3 misdemeanor under section
Indeed, by implying an identification requirement into the statute, the majority unnecessarily expands the scope of section
The majority‘s error is further compounded by its disregard for the fact that section
This presumption is hardly reassuring. As an initial matter, there is no guarantee that the police will question the individuals at the scene of an accident and request that they admit to driving the vehicle involved in the accident. More problematic, the majority‘s presumption overlooks our well-settled law regarding the concepts of due process and notice. As we explained in People v. Castro, 657 P.2d 932, 939 (Colo. 1983) (quoting People ex rel. City of Arvada v. Nissen, 650 P.2d 547, 551 (Colo. 1982)), “Due process of law is satisfied as long as the statutory terms ‘are sufficiently clear to persons of ordinary intelligence to afford a practical guide for law-abiding behavior and are capable of application in an even-handed manner by those responsible for enforcing the law.‘” Here, however, neither section
Fundamentally, the majority‘s erroneous and problematic interpretation of sections
The legislature, therefore, has taken specific steps to protect the confidentiality of medical information by creating statutory duties, the breach of which could serve as the basis for a civil remedy. However, the legislature has not imposed criminal penalties for violations of the confidentiality or privilege.
Id. at 263, 591 P.2d at 1037. We honored the General Assembly‘s competent decision to not impose criminal liability for the theft of medical information by steadfastly refusing to “expand unduly the traditional concept of intangible property” to encompass confidential medical records. Id. at 262, 591 P.2d at 1036.2
Home Insurance governs our statutory analysis of sections
To avoid Home Insurance, the majority attempts to narrow and distinguish it from the instant case. The majority explains that Home Insurance stands for the simple proposition that a court should not criminalize civil violations. Maj. op. at 575. In Home Insurance, the majority explains, we did not extend criminal liability to the theft of medical information because the General Assembly had only imposed civil penalties to protect such information. Id. Based on this reading, the majority concludes that Home Insurance is inapposite here where the General Assembly has expressly criminalized the failure to comply with the statutory disclosure provisions. Id. at 575.
The majority misreads our analysis in Home Insurance. In that case, we cited the General Assembly‘s decision to impose civil penalties to protect confidential medical information. 197 Colo. at 262-63, 591 P.2d at 1037. We then explained that “[t]he foregoing amply demonstrates that the General Assembly has legislative competence, if inclined to do so, to make illegal the invasion of privacy or confidentiality.” Id. at 262, 591 P.2d at 1037. The crux of our analysis, then, was our observation that the General Assembly had demonstrated its competence to criminalize certain conduct by imposing civil penalties. As such, it would have been improper to extend criminal liability by implication or construction. The majority thus erroneously simplifies Home Insurance to stand for the position that we may not criminalize civil penalties. In so doing, the majority waters down the fundamental principle that criminal statutes “cannot be extended either by implication or construction.” Id.; see also Boyd, 642 P.2d at 4. As a result, the majority overlooks the real possibility that the General Assembly competently and purposefully designed sections
In sum, the majority implies an identification requirement into sections
Notes
(Emphasis added.) Violation of subsection (1) is a class five felony where the accident results in serious bodily injury.[t]he driver of any vehicle directly involved in an accident resulting in injury to, serious bodily injury to, or death of any person shall immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of such accident or as close to the scene as possible but shall immediately return to and in every event shall remain at the scene of the accident until the driver has fulfilled the requirements of section
42-4-1603(1) .
(Emphasis added.)[t]he driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to, serious bodily injury to, or death of any person or damage to any vehicle which is driven or attended by any person shall give the driver‘s name, the driver‘s address, and the registration number of the vehicle he or she is driving and shall upon request exhibit his or her driver‘s license to the person struck or the driver or occupant of or person attending any vehicle collided with and where practical shall render to any person injured in such accident reasonable assistance....