Colorado § 16-7-303 - Fact of discussion and agreement not admissible.

§ 16-7-303. Fact of discussion and agreement not admissible.

Except as to proceedings resulting from a plea of guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) which is not withdrawn, the fact that the defendant or his defense counsel and the district attorney engaged in plea discussions or made a plea agreement shall not be received in evidence against or in favor of the defendant in any criminal or civil action or administrative proceeding.

Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 224, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-7-303.

ANNOTATION

Hearing necessary prerequisite to admit statements made in conjunction with withdrawn plea. A defendant who challenges the voluntariness or reliability of statements made in the course of tendering a guilty plea which is subsequently withdrawn or rejected and is later sought to be used against him at trial for impeachment purposes is entitled to a hearing which provides the safeguards set forth in Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964), before those statements may be used against him. People v. Cole, 195 Colo. 483, 584 P.2d 71 (1978).

Where defendant's statements inadmissible. Where the defendant's statements were made in the course of plea negotiations, for the narrowly limited purpose of assisting the district attorney and the court in determining whether he was an appropriate candidate for deferred sentencing, and where, when the statements were elicited, it was contemplated by both sides that they would have no probative effect on the issue of guilt or innocence, for both parties then assumed that a guilty plea would be entered, when the defendant did withdraw from the plea negotiations, thus aborting the only purpose for which his inculpatory statements had been given, it was palpably unfair to allow the prosecution to use those statements against him for an entirely unintended purpose to prove his guilt. Gelfand v. People, 196 Colo. 487, 586 P.2d 1331 (1978).

Where a trial court has accepted a defendant's plea agreement in which the prosecution and defendant have stipulated to imposition of concurrent sentences, the court is obligated under the plea agreement either to impose only concurrent periods of incarceration or to grant only concurrent periods of probation. People v. Flenniken, 720 P.2d 617 (Colo. App. 1986), rev'd on other grounds, 749 P.2d 395 (Colo. 1988).

Application of CRE 410, when read in light of Crim. P. 11 (e)(6) and this section, requires the exclusion of evidence of statements made by defendant during plea bargaining process only in regard to plea discussions with the attorney for the government. People v. Rollins, 759 P.2d 816 (Colo. App. 1988).