People v. Trujillo

8 Citing cases

  1. People v. Collins

    491 P.3d 438 (Colo. App. 2021)

    People v. Dist. Ct., 776 P.2d 1083, 1087 n.4 (Colo. 1989) (citation omitted) (indicating that a competency hearing may be held in the judge's chambers if it eases the child's anxiety); see also People v. Trujillo, 923 P.2d 277, 281 (Colo. App. 1996) ("the manner and scope of examination should be left to the sound discretion of the trial court"). ¶ 19 We review a preserved statutory claim regarding competence of a child witness for an abuse of discretion.

  2. People v. Osorio-Bahena

    312 P.3d 247 (Colo. App. 2013)   Cited 11 times

    ¶ 47 Determining witness competency is a matter of trial court discretion, People v. Alexander, 724 P.2d 1304, 1307 (Colo.1986), as is the manner and scope of the court's competency examination. People v. Trujillo, 923 P.2d 277, 281 (Colo.App.1996). But because an involuntary psychiatric examination could cause the victim “emotional trauma, embarrassment or intimidation,” People v. King, 41 Colo.App. 177, 179, 581 P.2d 739, 741 (1978), it should be ordered only for a “compelling reason.”

  3. People v. Osorio-Bahena

    2013 COA 55 (Colo. App. 2013)   Cited 10 times

    1986), as is the manner and scope of the court's competency examination. People v. Trujillo, 923 P.2d 277, 281 (Colo. App. 1996). But because an involuntary psychiatric examination could cause the victim "emotional trauma, embarrassment or intimidation," People v. King, 41 Colo. App. 177, 179, 581 P.2d 739, 741 (1978), it should be ordered only for a "compelling reason."

  4. People v. Phillips

    315 P.3d 136 (Colo. App. 2012)   Cited 54 times
    Holding error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt “because the other properly admissible evidence was overwhelming”

    D.P.'s statements, however, could still be admitted even if fewer than all factors favoring admission were established. Rojas, 181 P.3d at 1219–20;People v. Trujillo, 923 P.2d 277, 282 (Colo.App.1996) (noting that the eight factors “should not be used to foreclose admissibility on the basis that a factor has not been satisfied” (citing Dist. Court, 776 P.2d at 1090)); People v. Dill, 904 P.2d 1367, 1373 (Colo.App.1995)(noting that the trial court, in assessing the admissibility of child hearsay under the Child Hearsay Statute, “expressed concern that the statements had not been made close in time to the actual assault but determined that that concern was outweighed by other considerations”).

  5. Gruwell v. State

    2011 WY 67 (Wyo. 2011)   Cited 17 times
    Finding profile evidence constitutes inadmissible character evidence

    Other courts have also determined that questions regarding the events at issue in a sex abuse case are not required in determining a child witness's competency. See, e.g., People v. Trujillo, 923 P.2d 277, 281 (Colo.Ct.App. 1996) ("We hold that questioning a child-witness about the actual events of the charged offense is not required before a determination of his or her competency can be made."); Commonwealth v. Gamache, 35 Mass.App.Ct. 805, 626 N.E.2d 616 (1994) (court acted correctly in not requiring the child witness's competence to rest on a recall of the events and circumstances of the crime; only a general ability to observe and remember is required); State v. Cobb, 81 Ohio App.3d 179, 610 N.E.2d 1009 (1991) (court did not err in finding the child victim competent, despite the failure to ask the victim questions related to charged offense); see also 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 145 (2011); 81 Am.Jur.2d Witnesses § 201 (2010); Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 741, 107 S.Ct. 2658, 2665, 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987) ("[Q]uestions at a competency hearing usually are limited to matters that are unrelated to the basic issues of the trial."). [¶ 23] We agree with the authorities referenced above and conclude that it is

  6. People v. Cernazanu

    410 P.3d 603 (Colo. App. 2015)   Cited 11 times

    • The court's findings are supported by the record, see, e.g.,People v. Frost, 5 P.3d 317, 323 (Colo. App. 1999), and the combination of factors relied on are sufficient to support the court's decision. See People v. Phillips, 2012 COA 176, ¶¶ 144–45, 315 P.3d 136 (there was no abuse of discretion in finding child's statements reliable, even though four of the eight reliability factors were not met); People v. Rojas, 181 P.3d 1216, 1219–20 (Colo. App. 2008) (holding that child's statements were sufficiently reliable where they were made in response to nonleading, open-ended questions, in age-appropriate language, with no evidence of bias, and victim "made substantially similar statements to more than one person"); People v. Trujillo, 923 P.2d 277, 282 (Colo. App. 1996) (court did not err in finding child's statements reliable where they were made in response to open-ended questions and using age-appropriate language).IV. Conclusion

  7. People v. Alley

    232 P.3d 272 (Colo. App. 2010)   Cited 11 times
    Upholding denial of a continuance

    In Colorado, trial courts are afforded great latitude in dealing with witness testimony, and witness intoxication falls within their purview. Cf. People v. Trujillo, 923 P.2d 277, 281 (Colo.App. 1996) (manner and scope of examination of a child witness's competency "should be left to the sound discretion of the trial court"). Courts in other jurisdictions have also concluded that the trial court should be given wide latitude in determining the admissibility of an intoxicated witness's testimony, and that it is the jury's role to determine the witness's credibility.

  8. People v. Whitman

    205 P.3d 371 (Colo. App. 2007)   Cited 48 times
    Holding that partial closure of trial was no broader than necessary where the trial court restricted spectators’ entry and exit during testimony of minor victim who was previously distracted by such movement

    The court's findings regarding the reliability of a child witness's out-of-court statements will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by the record. People v. Trujillo, 923 P.2d 277, 282 (Colo.App. 1996). Although the trial court determines whether procedural guarantees are satisfied, the jury has the final determination of the statement's credibility.