last antecedent rule in Colorado

2019Rieger, on the other hand, argues that, even if the “last antecedent rule” applies, an exception to the rule also applies — an exception that would tie the phrase “of physical substance” as much to the words “article,” “object,” “document,” and “record,” as it is tied to the phrase “other thing.”4 ¶ 13 We do not, however, apply either of the parties’ proffered rules of statutory construction because it is otherwise clear to us that electronically stored documents or information falls within the 3 Under the last antecedent rule — which was legislatively repudiated in 1981 after the tampering st

2019Rieger, on the other hand, argues that, even if the “last antecedent rule” applies, an exception to the rule also applies — an exception that would tie the phrase “of physical substance” as much to the words “article,” “object,” “document,” and “record,” as it is tied to the phrase “other thing.”4 ¶ 13 We do not, however, apply either of the parties’ proffered rules of statutory construction because it is otherwise clear to us that electronically stored documents or information falls within the 3 Under the last antecedent rule — which was legislatively repudiated in 1981 after the tampering st

2015T 67 Under the rule of grammar known as the last antecedent rule, "relative and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, are construed to refer solely to the last antecedent with which they are closely connected." People v. McPherson; 200 Colo. 429, 432 , 619 P.2d 38, 40 (1980), abrogated on other grounds by People v. Crump, 769 P.2d 496, 499 (Colo.1989); see People in Interest of O.C., 2012 COA 161, ¶ 26 , 312 P.3d 226 (last antecedent rule "provides that in the absence of a contrary intention, referential and qualifying words or phrases réfer solely to the immediate

2015T 67 Under the rule of grammar known as the last antecedent rule, "relative and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, are construed to refer solely to the last antecedent with which they are closely connected." People v. McPherson; 200 Colo. 429, 432 , 619 P.2d 38, 40 (1980), abrogated on other grounds by People v. Crump, 769 P.2d 496, 499 (Colo.1989); see People in Interest of O.C., 2012 COA 161, ¶ 26 , 312 P.3d 226 (last antecedent rule "provides that in the absence of a contrary intention, referential and qualifying words or phrases réfer solely to the immediate

2015T 67 Under the rule of grammar known as the last antecedent rule, "relative and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, are construed to refer solely to the last antecedent with which they are closely connected." People v. McPherson; 200 Colo. 429, 432 , 619 P.2d 38, 40 (1980), abrogated on other grounds by People v. Crump, 769 P.2d 496, 499 (Colo.1989); see People in Interest of O.C., 2012 COA 161, ¶ 26 , 312 P.3d 226 (last antecedent rule "provides that in the absence of a contrary intention, referential and qualifying words or phrases réfer solely to the immediate

2015T 67 Under the rule of grammar known as the last antecedent rule, "relative and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, are construed to refer solely to the last antecedent with which they are closely connected." People v. McPherson; 200 Colo. 429, 432 , 619 P.2d 38, 40 (1980), abrogated on other grounds by People v. Crump, 769 P.2d 496, 499 (Colo.1989); see People in Interest of O.C., 2012 COA 161, ¶ 26 , 312 P.3d 226 (last antecedent rule "provides that in the absence of a contrary intention, referential and qualifying words or phrases réfer solely to the immediate

2026See Chandler-McPhail v. Duffey, 194 P.3d 434, 440 (Colo. App. 2008) (absent a contrary intention, the last antecedent rule dictates that referential and qualifying words and phrases refer exclusively to the clause immediately preceding them). ¶ 26 Applying that interpretation here, the second definition says that a person commits child abuse or neglect if they permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation that poses a threat of 13 injury to the child’s life or health.

2019Rieger, on the other hand, argues that, even if the “last antecedent rule” applies, an exception to the rule also applies — an exception that would tie the phrase “of physical substance” as much to the words “article,” “object,” “document,” and “record,” as it is tied to the phrase “other thing.”4 ¶ 13 We do not, however, apply either of the parties’ proffered rules of statutory construction because it is otherwise clear to us that electronically stored documents or information falls within the 3 Under the last antecedent rule — which was legislatively repudiated in 1981 after the tampering st

2019Rieger, on the other hand, argues that, even if the “last antecedent rule” applies, an exception to the rule also applies — an exception that would tie the phrase “of physical substance” as much to the words “article,” “object,” “document,” and “record,” as it is tied to the phrase “other thing.”4 ¶ 13 We do not, however, apply either of the parties’ proffered rules of statutory construction because it is otherwise clear to us that electronically stored documents or information falls within the 3 Under the last antecedent rule — which was legislatively repudiated in 1981 after the tampering st

2019Rieger, on the other hand, argues that, even if the “last antecedent rule” applies, an exception to the rule also applies — an exception that would tie the phrase “of physical substance” as much to the words “article,” “object,” “document,” and “record,” as it is tied to the phrase “other thing.”4 ¶ 13 We do not, however, apply either of the parties’ proffered rules of statutory construction because it is otherwise clear to us that electronically stored documents or information falls within the 3 Under the last antecedent rule — which was legislatively repudiated in 1981 after the tampering st

2019Rieger, on the other hand, argues that, even if the “last antecedent rule” applies, an exception to the rule also applies — an exception that would tie the phrase “of physical substance” as much to the words “article,” “object,” “document,” and “record,” as it is tied to the phrase “other thing.”4 ¶ 13 We do not, however, apply either of the parties’ proffered rules of statutory construction because it is otherwise clear to us that electronically stored documents or information falls within the 3 Under the last antecedent rule — which was legislatively repudiated in 1981 after the tampering st

2019It “denotes that the examples listed are not exhaustive or exclusive,” Preston v. Dupont, 35 P.3d 433, 439 (Colo. 2001), but only illustrative, People v. Patton, 2016 COA 187 , ¶¶ 14-16; see Bryan A. Garner, Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage 439 (3d ed. 2011) (“[I]ncluding . . . should not be used to introduce an exhaustive list, for it implies that the list is only partial[;] . . . ‘the use of the word including indicates that the specified list . . . is illustrative, not exhaustive.’”). ¶ 15 The phrase “physical evidence” has an established meaning in law, representing the form in which evi

2019It “denotes that the examples listed are not exhaustive or exclusive,” Preston v. Dupont, 35 P.3d 433, 439 (Colo. 2001), but only illustrative, People v. Patton, 2016 COA 187 , ¶¶ 14-16; see Bryan A. Garner, Garner’s Dictionary of Legal Usage 439 (3d ed. 2011) (“[I]ncluding . . . should not be used to introduce an exhaustive list, for it implies that the list is only partial[;] . . . ‘the use of the word including indicates that the specified list . . . is illustrative, not exhaustive.’”). ¶ 15 The phrase “physical evidence” has an established meaning in law, representing the form in which evi

2019Rieger, on the other hand, argues that, even if the “last antecedent rule” applies, an exception to the rule also applies — an exception that would tie the phrase “of physical substance” as much to the words “article,” “object,” “document,” and “record,” as it is tied to the phrase “other thing.”4 ¶ 13 We do not, however, apply either of the parties’ proffered rules of statutory construction because it is otherwise clear to us that electronically stored documents or information falls within the 3 Under the last antecedent rule — which was legislatively repudiated in 1981 after the tampering st

2019Rieger, on the other hand, argues that, even if the “last antecedent rule” applies, an exception to the rule also applies — an exception that would tie the phrase “of physical substance” as much to the words “article,” “object,” “document,” and “record,” as it is tied to the phrase “other thing.”4 ¶ 13 We do not, however, apply either of the parties’ proffered rules of statutory construction because it is otherwise clear to us that electronically stored documents or information falls within the 3 Under the last antecedent rule — which was legislatively repudiated in 1981 after the tampering st

2015T 67 Under the rule of grammar known as the last antecedent rule, "relative and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, are construed to refer solely to the last antecedent with which they are closely connected." People v. McPherson; 200 Colo. 429, 432 , 619 P.2d 38, 40 (1980), abrogated on other grounds by People v. Crump, 769 P.2d 496, 499 (Colo.1989); see People in Interest of O.C., 2012 COA 161, ¶ 26 , 312 P.3d 226 (last antecedent rule "provides that in the absence of a contrary intention, referential and qualifying words or phrases réfer solely to the immediate

2014Id. at 110; see also Dubois v. People, 211 P.3d 41, 43 (Colo.2009). 21 Additionally, we note that the General Assembly has not adopted the last antecedent rule, "which provides that in the absence of a contrary intention, referential and qualifying words or phrases refer solely to the immediately preceding clause...." People in Interest of O.C., 2012 COA 161, ¶ 26 , 312 P.3d 226 ; see § 2-4-214, C.R.S.2018.

2009See Bd. of County Comm'rs v. City of Aurora, 62 P.3d 1049, 1055-56 (Colo.App.2002) (last antecedent rule, which holds that relative and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, are construed to refer solely to the last antecedent with which they are closely connected, has not been adopted by the General Assembly and does not create a presumption of statutory intent).

2008Co., 327 Mont. 30 , 111 P.3d 220, 224 (2005); Wohl v. Swinney, 118 Ohio St.3d 277 , 888 N.E.2d 1062 , 1065 (2008); Barrand, Inc. v. Whataburger, Inc., 214 S.W.3d 122 , 134 n. 2 (Tex.App.2006).

2008Co., 327 Mont. 30 , 111 P.3d 220, 224 (2005); Wohl v. Swinney, 118 Ohio St.3d 277 , 888 N.E.2d 1062 , 1065 (2008); Barrand, Inc. v. Whataburger, Inc., 214 S.W.3d 122 , 134 n. 2 (Tex.App.2006).

2008Co., 147 Cal.App.4th 137 , 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 786, 796 (2007) ("Ordinarily the last antecedent rule applies to statutory construction, but it has also been stated to apply to contracts and has been used specifically to interpret insurance policy language." (citation omitted) ); 2A Norman J.

2008Co., 147 Cal.App.4th 137 , 53 Cal.Rptr.3d 786, 796 (2007) ("Ordinarily the last antecedent rule applies to statutory construction, but it has also been stated to apply to contracts and has been used specifically to interpret insurance policy language." (citation omitted) ); 2A Norman J.

2008This contention rests on a rule, which is sometimes referred to as an exception to the last antecedent rule, stating that "[when a referential or qualifying clause follows several words or phrases and is applicable as much to the first word or phrase as to the others in the list ... the clause should be applied to all of the words or phrases that preceded it." Estate of David v. Snelson, 776 P.2d 813, 818 (Colo.1989); see White v. County of Sacramento, 31 Cal.3d 676 , 183 Cal.Rptr. 520 , 646 P.2d 191, 193 (1982)(pro-viding two exceptions to the last antecedent rule).

2008This contention rests on a rule, which is sometimes referred to as an exception to the last antecedent rule, stating that "[when a referential or qualifying clause follows several words or phrases and is applicable as much to the first word or phrase as to the others in the list ... the clause should be applied to all of the words or phrases that preceded it." Estate of David v. Snelson, 776 P.2d 813, 818 (Colo.1989); see White v. County of Sacramento, 31 Cal.3d 676 , 183 Cal.Rptr. 520 , 646 P.2d 191, 193 (1982)(pro-viding two exceptions to the last antecedent rule).

2008See Albright, 14 P.3d at 322 ; cf. White, 183 Cal.Rptr. 520 , 646 P.2d at 194 (last antecedent rule is "another way of stating the fundamental rule that a court is to construe a statute 'so as to effectuate the purpose of the law'" (quoting Tripp v. Swoap, 17 Cal.3d 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 789 , 552 P.2d 749, 755 (1976)) ).

2008See Albright, 14 P.3d at 322 ; cf. White, 183 Cal.Rptr. 520 , 646 P.2d at 194 (last antecedent rule is "another way of stating the fundamental rule that a court is to construe a statute 'so as to effectuate the purpose of the law'" (quoting Tripp v. Swoap, 17 Cal.3d 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 789 , 552 P.2d 749, 755 (1976)) ).

2008See Albright, 14 P.3d at 322 ; cf. White, 183 Cal.Rptr. 520 , 646 P.2d at 194 (last antecedent rule is "another way of stating the fundamental rule that a court is to construe a statute 'so as to effectuate the purpose of the law'" (quoting Tripp v. Swoap, 17 Cal.3d 671 , 131 Cal.Rptr. 789 , 552 P.2d 749, 755 (1976)) ).

1989See People v. Myers, 714 P.2d 513, 515 (Colo.App. 1985).