Colorado § 19-3-207 - Inadmissibility of certain evidence.

§ 19-3-207. Inadmissibility of certain evidence.

(1) Upon the request of the county attorney, special county attorney, or the city attorney of a city and county, the court shall set a hearing to determine the admissibility in a subsequent criminal proceeding arising from the same episode of information derived directly from testimony obtained pursuant to compulsory process in a proceeding under this article. The district attorney of the judicial district in which the matter is being heard shall be given five days' written notice of the hearing by the clerk of the court. Such hearing shall be held in camera, and the district attorney shall have the right to appear at the hearing and to object to the entry of the order holding such information inadmissible. The court shall not enter such an order if the district attorney presents prima facie evidence that the inadmissibility of such information would substantially impair his or her ability to prosecute the criminal case. The provisions of this subsection (1) shall not be construed to prevent any law enforcement officer from independently producing or obtaining the same or similar facts, information, or evidence for use in any criminal prosecution.

(2) No professional shall be examined in any criminal case without the consent of the respondent as to statements made pursuant to compliance with court treatment orders, including protective orders, entered under this article; except that such privilege shall not apply to any discussion of any future misconduct or of any other past misconduct unrelated to the allegations involved in the treatment plan. The admissibility of testimony as set forth in this subsection (2) shall not be subject to the hearing and notice provisions of subsection (1) of this section.

(2.5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, a juvenile's statements to a professional made in the course of treatment ordered by the court pursuant to this article shall not, without the juvenile's consent, be admitted into evidence in any criminal or juvenile delinquency case brought against the juvenile; except that the privilege shall not apply to statements regarding future misconduct.

(3) No admission made by a respondent in open court or by written pleading filed with the court to a petition in dependency or neglect may be used against him or her in any criminal prosecution, except for purposes of impeachment or rebuttal.

Source: L. 87: Entire title R&RE, p. 762, § 1, effective October 1. L. 90: (2) amended, p. 1037, § 4, effective April 3. L. 97: Entire section amended, p. 518, § 5, effective July 1. L. 2004: (2.5) added, p. 274, § 1, effective April 5.

ANNOTATION

Sections 19-3-206 and 19-3-207 must be read in pari materia because they are part of the same code and apply to the same subject. H.B. v. Lake County Distr. Court, 819 P.2d 499 (Colo. 1991).

Subsection (2) provides a privilege for statements made by a parent to a treating professional and therefore cannot be used for any purpose in a related criminal case. Therefore, any statements made by defendant father in course of sex abuse and domestic violence evaluation are privileged; thus his participation in the evaluation does not implicate his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination. People ex rel. I.L., 176 P.3d 878 (Colo. App. 2007).

Trial court erred in precluding social worker's testimony as to mother's statements in case involving stepfather. Because trial court apparently understood this section to bar the examination of the social worker in stepfather's criminal case as long as social worker qualified as a professional involved in the dependency and neglect proceeding, it failed to make sufficient findings to satisfy the additional statutory requirement that the statements at issue be ones made in compliance with court treatment orders or demonstrate the applicability of § 13-90-107, which is limited by its own terms to communications made by a client in the course of professional employment or psychotherapy. People v. Gabriesheski, 262 P.3d 653 (Colo. 2011).