People v. Razatos

41 Citing cases

  1. In re A.C.B.

    507 P.3d 1078 (Colo. App. 2022)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that the Sixth Amendment right to court-appointed counsel applied to remedial (formerly "civil") sanctions where jail sentences were available even though this right doesn’t apply in civil cases

    The version of the rule in effect until 1995 recognized two types of contempt: criminal and civil. People v. Razatos , 699 P.2d 970, 974 n.1 (Colo. 1985). Generally, criminal contempt and civil contempt were differentiated by the purpose of the proceeding and type of sanctions requested.

  2. In re Marriage Conners

    550 P.3d 684 (Colo. 2024)   Cited 1 times

    Our case law and the prior version of C.R.C.P. 107 have referred to contempt as "civil" and "criminal." See, e.g., People v. Barron, 677 P.2d 1370, 1372 (Colo. 1984); People v. Rezatos, 699 P.2d 970, 974 (Colo. 1985); see also C.R.C.P. 107(e) (1994). But these authorities make it clear that these terms refer to the "purpose and character of the sanctions," they don’t describe which set of procedural rules applies to the action.

  3. In re Marriage of Sheehan

    511 P.3d 708 (Colo. App. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    Husband instead focuses on cases that discuss the difference between a past ability to pay and a present one. See, e.g. , Estate of Elliott , 993 P.2d 474 ; People v. Razatos , 699 P.2d 970 (Colo. 1985). ¶ 31 Husband's cases, though not dispositive, are informative.

  4. People v. Roberson

    377 P.3d 1039 (Colo. 2016)

    ¶ 23 For Fifth Amendment purposes, the privilege against self-incrimination extends not only to answers that would themselves support a conviction but also to those that would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the accused. Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 20, 121 S.Ct. 1252, 149 L.Ed.2d 158 (2001) ; People v. Razatos, 699 P.2d 970, 976 (Colo.1985). Accordingly, “[t]he right not to incriminate oneself is not triggered solely by the existence or even likelihood of a criminal prosecution; rather, ‘[w]hen a witness can demonstrate any possibility of prosecution which is more than fanciful he has demonstrated a reasonable fear of prosecution sufficient to meet constitutional muster.’ ”

  5. People v. Roberson

    377 P.3d 1039 (Colo. 2016)

    ¶ 23 For Fifth Amendment purposes, the privilege against self-incrimination extends not only to answers that would themselves support a conviction but also to those that would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the accused. Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 20, 121 S.Ct. 1252, 149 L.Ed.2d 158 (2001) ; People v. Razatos, 699 P.2d 970, 976 (Colo.1985). Accordingly, “[t]he right not to incriminate oneself is not triggered solely by the existence or even likelihood of a criminal prosecution; rather, ‘[w]hen a witness can demonstrate any possibility of prosecution which is more than fanciful he has demonstrated a reasonable fear of prosecution sufficient to meet constitutional muster.’ ”

  6. In the Matter of Bauer

    30 P.3d 185 (Colo. 2001)   Cited 3 times
    Noting that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel afforded to criminal defendants extends to contempt proceedings, both civil and criminal, which may result in imprisonment of the contemnor

    We hold that it does. In People v. Razatos, 699 P.2d 970 (Colo. 1985), we described the Sixth Amendment rights of a person charged with both civil and criminal contempt: The deprivation of a person's liberty has the same effect on the confined person when jailed after civil or other types of proceedings as when imprisoned after conviction for a crime.

  7. People v. Clark

    370 P.3d 197 (Colo. App. 2015)   Cited 27 times
    Reviewing evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion

    ¶109 "[B]efore a court can compel a response . . . in the face of a claim of the privilege, it must be ‘perfectly clear, from a careful consideration of all the circumstances in the case, that the witness is mistaken, and that the answer[s] cannot possibly have such tendency' to incriminate." People v. Razatos, 699 P.2d 970, 976 (Colo. 1985) (emphasis in original) (quoting Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 488 (1951)).

  8. People v. Blackwell

    251 P.3d 468 (Colo. App. 2010)   Cited 13 times
    Rejecting cumulative error argument after discerning no single error

    The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article II, section 18 of the Colorado Constitution can be invoked by anyone whose statements or answers might incriminate that person by admitting the commission of illegal acts or furnishing a chain in the link of evidence needed to prosecute him or her for a crime. People v. Razatos, 699 P.2d 970, 976 (Colo. 1985). The burden lies with the person asserting the right to remain silent to establish that the privilege is properly invoked.

  9. People v. Guthrie

    286 P.3d 530 (Colo. 2012)   Cited 6 times

    The county court, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 407(a)(2) and (d), held Guthrie in criminal contempt of court. Criminal contempt proceedings are designed to preserve the power and vindicate the dignity of the court by imposing punishment on the contemnor. People v. Razatos, 699 P.2d 970, 974 (Colo.1985). Our original jurisdiction is an appropriate means to review summary contempt orders.

  10. In re Marriage of Weis

    232 P.3d 789 (Colo. 2010)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that for § 362(b)(B) to apply, the trial court must find that non-estate funds or assets exist from which debtor is to pay the domestic support obligation that the trial court is imposing

    As to the trial court's second point, we observe that "criminal contempt is not a common law or statutory crime" in Colorado. People v. Razatos, 699 P.2d 970, 974 (Colo. 1985) (citation omitted). Additionally, not all protections available for criminal defendants are available to those charged with criminal contempt.