Can someone point me in the direction to a place where I can get some information on exactly what the Colorado Children's Code that would have applied in this case IF BR was involved? I remember reading somewhere that because of his age, not only would his involvement be concealed but if needed, so would anyone else's if uncovering their identity would lead to identifying him. The reason I am curious is, to me, it might explain why school and Doctor records for both children were off limits and might even explain why Hunter decided not to follow through on the GJ's true bill. Anyway, any help would be appreciated. Thank you in advance.
COLORADO REVISED STATUTES
*** This document reflects changes current through all laws passed at the First Regular Session
of the Seventieth General Assembly of the State of Colorado (2015) ***
TITLE 18. CRIMINAL CODE
ARTICLE 1.PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES GENERALLY
PART 8. RESPONSIBILITY
C.R.S. 18-1-801 (2015)
18-1-801. Insufficient age
The responsibility of a person for his conduct is the same for persons between the ages of ten and eighteen as it is for persons over eighteen except to the extent that responsibility is modified by the provisions of the "Colorado Children's Code", title 19, C.R.S. No child under ten years of age shall be found guilty of any offense.
HISTORY: Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 412, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-1-901.
Editor's note: This title was numbered as chapter 40, C.R.S. 1963. The substantive provisions of this title were repealed and reenacted in 1971, resulting in the addition, relocation, and elimination of sections as well as subject matter. For amendments to this title prior to 1971, consult the Colorado statutory research explanatory note beginning on page vii in the front of this volume. For a detailed comparison of this title, see the comparative tables located in the back of the index.
Law reviews: For article, "Criminal Law", which discusses Tenth Circuit decisions relating to criminal law, see 61 Den. L.J. 255 (1984); for article, "Criminal Law", which discusses Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with criminal law, see 62 Den. U. L. Rev. 125 (1985); for a discussion of Tenth Circuit decisions dealing with criminal law, see 66 Den. U. L. Rev. 711 (1989) and 67 Den. U. L. Rev. 691 (1990); for article, "Felony Sentencing in Colorado", see 18 Colo. Law. 1689 (1989); for article, "1990 Criminal Law Legislative Update", see 19 Colo. Law. 2049 (1990).
ANNOTATION
Law reviews. For article, "Mens Rea and the Colorado Criminal Code", see 52 U. Colo. L. Rev. 167 (1981). For comment, "Arrested Development: An Alternative to Juveniles Serving LIFE Without Parole in Colorado", see 78 U. Colo. L. Rev. 1059 (2007).
Annotator's note. Since § 18-1-801 is similar to former § 40-1-4, C.R.S. 1963, and laws antecedent thereto, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.
An infant is presumed incapable of committing crime because he is presumed not to possess criminal intent. Calkins v. Albi, 163 Colo. 370, 431 P.2d 17 (1967).
An infant under the age of 10 years shall not be found guilty of any offense. Gallegos v. Tinsley, 139 Colo. 157, 337 P.2d 386 (1959); LeCoq ex rel. LeCoq v. Klemme, 28 Colo. App. 590, 476 P.2d 280 (1970).
Although a child under the age of 10 cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts. People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092, (Colo. App. 1991).
Minor who is over 14 years of age is accountable for crimes committed by him. Gallegos v. Tinsley, 139 Colo. 157, 337 P.2d 386 (1959).
Though the children's code may not in so many words raise the age below which there can be no criminal responsibility as concerns a felony from 10 to 14 years, in effect, that is exactly what it did. People ex rel. Terrell v. District Court, 164 Colo. 437, 435 P.2d 763 (1967).
Incapacity is a defense. The incapacity of a party, by reason of his tender years, to commit the crime charged may be a good defense on the trial, as it may effectually negative the charge. Mitchell v. People, 24 Colo. 532, 52 P. 671 (1898).
Capacity is not required to be stated in the indictment, and its omission furnishes no ground for arresting the judgment after a verdict against the accused. Mitchell v. People, 24 Colo. 532, 52 P. 671 (1898).
This section is not relevant to a determination of liability for the commission of an intentional tort. LeCoq ex rel. LeCoq v. Klemme, 28 Colo. App. 590, 476 P.2d 280 (1970).
Applied in People v. Gallegos, 628 P.2d 999 (Colo. 1981).
C.R.S. 18-1-801
