 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Yascavage11/30/2004
gislature and adopt the statutory construction that best effectuates the purposes of the legislative scheme. See Reg'l Transp. Dist. v. Lopez, 916 P.2d 187, 192 (Colo. 1996), Bynum v. Kautzky, 784 P.2d 735 (Colo. 1989). Basic principles of statutory interpretation guide us. First we look to the language of the statute itself. Martinez v. Badis, 842 P.2d 245 (Colo. 1992). We read words and phrases in context and construe them literally according to common usage unless they have acquired a technical meaning by legislative definition. §§ 2-4-101, 2-4-212, C.R.S. (2004); People v. J.J.H, 17 P.3d 159 (Colo. 2001). Absent some ambiguity in the language of the statute, we do not resort to any further rules of statutory construction. People v. Cooper, 27 P.3d 348 (Colo. 2001). However, if the language is ambiguous, we may rely on other factors such as legislative history, the consequences of a given construction, and the end to be achieved by the statute.
§ 2-4-203, C.R.S. (2004), Schubert v. People, 698 P.2d 788, 793-94 (Colo. 1985).
C. The Language of the Statute
Yascavage's conviction turns on our interpretation of one subsection of the statute only. However, the issue on certiorari addresses the statute as a whole, and we therefore begin by reviewing section 18-8-707 in its entirety.
Section 18-8-707 identifies the class of persons the legislature intended to protect, when such persons would be protected, and from what actions these persons would be protected. The introductory provision of the tampering statute provides:
A person commits tampering with a witness or victim if he intentionally attempts without bribery or threats to induce a witness or victim or a person he believes is to be called to testify as a witness or victim in any official proceeding or who may be called to testify as a witness to or victim of any crime to [do one of the following].
§ 18-8-707(1), C.R.S. (2004). The Model Penal Code section 241.6 referenced "witnesses" and "informants" only. Colorado chose to refer to "witnesses" and "victims" and adopted an expansive definition of "witness" encompassing a much broader class than proposed by the Model Penal Code.
"Witness" means any natural person:
(a) Having knowledge of the existence or non-existence of facts relating to any crime;
(b) Whose declaration under oath is received or has been received as evidence for any purpose;
(c) Who has reported any crime to any peace officer, correctional officer, or judicial officer;
(d) Who has been served with a subpoena issued under the authority of any court in this state, of any other state, or of the United States; or
(e) Who would be believed by any reasonable person to be an individual described in paragraph (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this subsection (2).
§ 18-8-702(2), C.R.S. (2004)(emphasis added). The general assembly has also explicitly defined "victim." In the context of the tampering statute, a victim is any person against whom any crime has been perpetrated or attempted. § 18-8-702(1). Clearly then, the general assembly intended the tampering statute to provide protection to a broad class of persons.
The nexus, however, is that the defendant must believe the person is or will be a participant in any official proceeding. Section 18-8-501, C.R.S. (2004) defines official proceeding as
"a proceeding heard before any legislative, judicial, administrative, or other government agency, or official authorized to hear evidence under oath, including any magistrate, hearing examiner, commissioner, notary, or other person taking testimony or depositions i
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|