(1) An out-of-court statement
made by a person under thirteen years of age, not otherwise admissible by a statute or court rule
that provides an exception to the hearsay objection, is admissible in any criminal, delinquency,
or civil proceeding in which the person is alleged to have been a victim if the conditions of
subsection (5) of this section are satisfied.
(2) An out-of-court statement made by a child, as child is defined under the statutes that
are the subject of the action, or a person under fifteen years of age if child is undefined under the
statutes that are the subject of the action, describing all or part of an offense of unlawful sexual
behavior, as defined in section 16-22-102 (9), performed or attempted to be performed with, by,
on, or in the presence of the child declarant, and that is not otherwise admissible by a statute or
court rule that provides an exception to the hearsay objection, is admissible in evidence in any
criminal, delinquency, or civil proceeding if the conditions of subsection (5) of this section are
satisfied.
(3) An out-of-court statement by a child, as child is defined under the statutes that are
the subject of the action, describing any act of child abuse, as defined in section 18-6-401, to
which the child declarant was subjected or that the child declarant witnessed, and that is not
otherwise admissible by a statute or court rule that provides an exception to the hearsay
objection, is admissible in evidence in any criminal, delinquency, or civil proceeding in which a
child is a victim of child abuse or the subject of a proceeding alleging that a child is neglected or
dependent under section 19-1-104 (1)(b), if the conditions of subsection (5) of this section are
satisfied.
(4) An out-of-court statement made by a person under thirteen years of age describing all
or part of an offense contained in part 1 of article 3 of title 18, or describing an act of domestic
violence as defined in section 18-6-800.3 (1), and that is not otherwise admissible by statute or
court rule that provides an exception to the hearsay objection, is admissible in evidence in any
criminal, delinquency, or civil proceeding if the conditions of subsection (5) of this section are
satisfied.
(5) (a) The exceptions to the hearsay objection described in subsections (1) to (4) of this
section apply only if the court finds in a pretrial hearing conducted outside the presence of the
jury that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient safeguards of
reliability; and
(b) The child either:
(I) Testifies at the proceedings; or
(II) Is unavailable as a witness and there is corroborative evidence of the act which is the
subject of the statement.
(6) If a statement is admitted pursuant to this section, the court shall instruct the jury in
the final written instructions that during the proceeding the jury heard evidence repeating a
child's out-of-court statement and that it is for the jury to determine the weight and credit to be
given the statement and that, in making the determination, the jury shall consider the age and
maturity of the child, the nature of the statement, the circumstances under which the statement
was made, and any other relevant factor.
(7) The proponent of the statement shall give the adverse party reasonable notice of the
proponent's intention to offer the statement and the particulars of the statement.
Source: L. 83: Entire section added, p. 629, § 1, effective May 25. L. 85: IP(1) amended,
p. 676, § 5, effective June 7; IP(1) amended, p. 714, § 1, effective June 7. L. 87: IP(1) amended,
p. 558, § 1, effective April 16; IP(1) amended, p. 815, § 13, effective October 1. L. 93: (2)
amended, p. 515, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2003: IP(1) amended, p. 973, § 5, effective April 17.
L. 2006: IP(1) amended, p. 420, § 1, effective April 13. L. 2015: IP(1) amended, (HB 15-1183),
ch. 96, p. 275, § 1, effective April 10. L. 2019: Entire section amended, (SB 19-071), ch. 42, p.
144, § 1, effective July 1.
Editor's note: (1) Senate Bill 85-042 superseded by House Bill 85-1327.
(2) Amendments to the introductory portion to subsection (1) by House Bill 87-1256 and
Senate Bill 87-144 were harmonized.
13-25-129.5. Statements of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities -
hearsay exception. (1) An out-of-court statement made by a person with an intellectual and
developmental disability, as defined in section 25.5-10-202 (26)(a), C.R.S., not otherwise
admissible by a statute or court rule that provides an exception to the objection of hearsay is
admissible in any criminal or delinquency proceeding in which the person is alleged to have
been a victim if the conditions of subsection (5) of this section are satisfied.
(2) (a) An out-of-court statement made by a person with an intellectual and
developmental disability, as defined in section 25.5-10-202 (26)(a), C.R.S., that describes all or
part of an offense described in paragraph (b) of this subsection (2) performed with, by, on, or in
the presence of the declarant, and that is not otherwise admissible by a statute or court rule that
provides an exception to the objection of hearsay, is admissible in any criminal, delinquency, or
civil proceeding if the conditions of subsection (5) of this section are satisfied.
(b) The exception described in subsection (2)(a) of this section applies to an out-of-court
statement made by a person with an intellectual and developmental disability, which statement
describes all or part of any of the following offenses:
(I) Sexual assault, as described in section 18-3-402 or 18-6.5-103;
(II) Unlawful sexual contact, as described in section 18-3-404 or 18-6.5-103;
(III) Sexual assault on a child, as described in section 18-3-405 or 18-6.5-103;
(IV) Sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, as described in section 18-3-
405.3 or 18-6.5-103;
(V) Internet sexual exploitation of a child, as described in section 18-3-405.4;
(VI) Sexual assault on a client by a psychotherapist, as described in section 18-3-405.5
or 18-6.5-103;
(VII) Incest, as described in section 18-6-301;
(VIII) Aggravated incest, as described in section 18-6-302;
(IX) Human trafficking of a minor for involuntary servitude, as described in section 18-
3-503, or human trafficking of a minor for sexual servitude, as described in section 18-3-504 (2);
(X) Sexual exploitation of a child, as described in section 18-6-403;
(XI) Indecent exposure, as described in section 18-7-302;
(XI.5) An offense contained in article 6.5 of title 18; or
(XII) Criminal attempt to commit any of the acts specified in this subsection (2)(b).
(3) An out-of-court statement by a person with an intellectual and developmental
disability, as defined in section 25.5-10-202 (26)(a), C.R.S., that describes any act of child
abuse, as defined in section 18-6-401, C.R.S., to which the declarant was subjected or which the
declarant witnessed, and that is not otherwise admissible by a statute or court rule that provides
an exception to the objection of hearsay, is admissible in evidence in any criminal, delinquency,
or civil proceeding in which a child is alleged to be a victim of child abuse or the subject of a
proceeding alleging that a child is neglected or dependent under section 19-1-104 (1)(b), C.R.S.,
if the conditions of subsection (5) of this section are satisfied.
(4) An out-of-court statement made by a person with an intellectual and developmental
disability, as defined in section 25.5-10-202 (26)(a), that describes all or part of an offense
contained in part 1 of article 3 of title 18 or article 6.5 of title 18, or that describes an act of
domestic violence as defined in section 18-6-800.3 (1), not otherwise admissible by statute or
court rule that provides an exception to the objection of hearsay, is admissible in evidence in any
criminal, delinquency, or civil proceeding if the conditions of subsection (5) of this section are
satisfied.
(5) The exceptions to the objection of hearsay described in subsections (1), (2), (3), and
(4) of this section shall apply only if the court finds in a hearing conducted outside the presence
of the jury that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide sufficient
safeguards of reliability; and either:
(a) The statement is a nontestimonial statement; or
(b) (I) The declarant testifies at the proceedings; or
(II) If the declarant is unavailable to testify, the defendant has had an opportunity to
cross-examine the declarant in a previous proceeding and there is corroborative evidence of the
act which is the subject of the statement.
(6) If a statement is admitted pursuant to this section, the court shall instruct the jury in
the final written instructions that during the proceeding the jury heard evidence repeating a
person's out-of-court statement, that it is for the jury to determine the weight and credit to be
given the statement, and that, in making the determination, the jury shall consider the nature of
the statement, the circumstances under which the statement was made, and any other relevant
factor.
(7) The proponent of the statement shall give the adverse party reasonable notice of his
or her intention to offer the statement and the particulars of the statement.
Source: L. 2012: Entire section added, (HB 12-1085), ch. 75, p. 253, § 1, effective
August 8. L. 2013: (1), (2)(a), (3), and (4) amended, (HB 13-1314), ch. 323, p. 1802, § 24,
effective March 1, 2014. L. 2014: (2)(b)(IX) amended, (HB 14-1273), ch. 282, p. 1152, § 8,
effective July 1. L. 2017: (2)(b) and (4) amended, (SB 17-024), ch. 83, p. 257, § 1, effective July
1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
130
cases (
19 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case:
People v. Bowers, 801 P.2d 511 (Colo. 1990).
People v. Bowers, 801 P.2d 511 (Colo. 1990).
· cites it 360× “ult, the court of appeals held that the People failed to establish the necessary foundational requirements for admitting the child's hearsay statements into evidence under the residual hearsay exceptions created by CRE 803(24) and CRE 804(b)(5) and also failed to satisfy the…”
People v. Diefenderfer, 784 P.2d 741 (Colo. 1989).
· cites it 194× “These statements were subsequently admitted at trial through the testimony of VanScoyk pursuant to the statutory hearsay exception of section 13-25-129, 6A C.R.S. (1987), which permits the admission of certain statements made by children who have been victims of sexual abuse.”
Stevens v. People, 796 P.2d 946 (Colo. 1990).
· cites it 118× “We granted certiorari to review the defendant's assertion that the trial court erred in holding that hearsay statements admitted pursuant to the child hearsay statute, § 13-25-129, 6A C.R.S. (1987), were sufficiently corroborated to be admissible by the child-victims' use of…”
People v. Whitman, 205 P.3d 371 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 31× “Thus, we conclude the court did not abuse its *381 discretion in finding the girls were competent to testify.”
People v. Dist. Court of El Paso Cnty., 776 P.2d 1083 (Colo. 1989).
· cites it 48× “(1987), and that the child’s statements were unreliable and therefore inadmissible hearsay under section 13-25-129. We issued a rule to show cause, and now make the rule absolute and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
People v. Wood, 743 P.2d 422 (Colo. 1987).
· cites it 39× “scribing any act of sexual contact, intrusion, or penetration, as defined in section 18-3-401, performed with, by, or on the child declarant, not otherwise admissible by a statute or court rule which provides an exception to the objection of hearsay, may be admissible in any…”
v. Daley, 2021 COA 85 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 6× “1, § 13-25-129, 2019 Colo. Sess. Laws (S.B. 19-071 amended the statute).”
People v. Jefferson, 2017 CO 35 (Colo. 2017).
· cites it 17× “Jefferson’s counsel acknowledged that the DVD was admissible under the statutory hearsay exception for statements of child sexual assault victims, section 13-25-129, C.R.S. (2016), and he stated that he had “no objection to [its] being played for the jury.”
People v. Wilson, 838 P.2d 284 (Colo. 1992).
· cites it 39× “Before resolving the merits of the People’s claim, we first outline the procedural scheme created by section 13-25-129, 6A C.R.S. (1987), for admitting hearsay statements of child victims of unlawful sexual offenses, and then review our prior decisions that have considered the…”
People v. Gaffney, 769 P.2d 1081 (Colo. 1989).
· cites it 11× “Prior to trial the district court conducted a hearing, pursuant to section 13-25-129, 6A C.R.S. (1987), on the admissibility of certain hearsay statements made by the child-victim, a twelve year old boy, to his mother, to an investigating police officer, and to an examining…”
Thomas v. People, 803 P.2d 144 (Colo. 1990).
· cites it 16× “The prosecution wished to offer these statements under both section 13-25-129, 6A C.R.S. (1987), the child victim hearsay statute, and CRE 803(24), the residual exception to the hearsay rule.”
People v. Aldrich, 849 P.2d 821 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 18× “He asserts that § 13-25-129, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A) is the exclusive means through which the hearsay testimony of child sexual abuse victims should be admitted.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(1) — 32 cases
v. Daley, 2021 COA 85 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
“1, § 13-25-129, 2019 Colo. Sess. Laws (S.B. 19-071 amended the statute).”
People v. Bowers, 801 P.2d 511 (Colo. 1990).
“ult, the court of appeals held that the People failed to establish the necessary foundational requirements for admitting the child's hearsay statements into evidence under the residual hearsay exceptions created by CRE 803(24) and CRE 804(b)(5) and also failed to satisfy the…”
People v. Diefenderfer, 784 P.2d 741 (Colo. 1989).
“These statements were subsequently admitted at trial through the testimony of VanScoyk pursuant to the statutory hearsay exception of section 13-25-129, 6A C.R.S. (1987), which permits the admission of certain statements made by children who have been victims of sexual abuse.”
People v. Dist. Court of El Paso Cnty., 776 P.2d 1083 (Colo. 1989).
“(1987), and that the child’s statements were unreliable and therefore inadmissible hearsay under section 13-25-129. We issued a rule to show cause, and now make the rule absolute and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(1)(a) — 11 cases
People v. Bowers, 801 P.2d 511 (Colo. 1990).
“ult, the court of appeals held that the People failed to establish the necessary foundational requirements for admitting the child's hearsay statements into evidence under the residual hearsay exceptions created by CRE 803(24) and CRE 804(b)(5) and also failed to satisfy the…”
People v. Whitman, 205 P.3d 371 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“Thus, we conclude the court did not abuse its *381 discretion in finding the girls were competent to testify.”
People v. Jefferson, 2017 CO 35 (Colo. 2017).
“Jefferson’s counsel acknowledged that the DVD was admissible under the statutory hearsay exception for statements of child sexual assault victims, section 13-25-129, C.R.S. (2016), and he stated that he had “no objection to [its] being played for the jury.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(1)(b) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(1)(b)(I) — 3 cases
People v. Jefferson, 2017 CO 35 (Colo. 2017).
“Jefferson’s counsel acknowledged that the DVD was admissible under the statutory hearsay exception for statements of child sexual assault victims, section 13-25-129, C.R.S. (2016), and he stated that he had “no objection to [its] being played for the jury.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(1)(b)(II) — 4 cases
People v. Bowers, 801 P.2d 511 (Colo. 1990).
“ult, the court of appeals held that the People failed to establish the necessary foundational requirements for admitting the child's hearsay statements into evidence under the residual hearsay exceptions created by CRE 803(24) and CRE 804(b)(5) and also failed to satisfy the…”
Stevens v. People, 796 P.2d 946 (Colo. 1990).
“We granted certiorari to review the defendant's assertion that the trial court erred in holding that hearsay statements admitted pursuant to the child hearsay statute, § 13-25-129, 6A C.R.S. (1987), were sufficiently corroborated to be admissible by the child-victims' use of…”
People v. Dist. Court of El Paso Cnty., 776 P.2d 1083 (Colo. 1989).
“(1987), and that the child’s statements were unreliable and therefore inadmissible hearsay under section 13-25-129. We issued a rule to show cause, and now make the rule absolute and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(1Kb) — 1 case
People v. Wilson, 838 P.2d 284 (Colo. 1992).
“Before resolving the merits of the People’s claim, we first outline the procedural scheme created by section 13-25-129, 6A C.R.S. (1987), for admitting hearsay statements of child victims of unlawful sexual offenses, and then review our prior decisions that have considered the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(2) — 30 cases
People v. Diefenderfer, 784 P.2d 741 (Colo. 1989).
“These statements were subsequently admitted at trial through the testimony of VanScoyk pursuant to the statutory hearsay exception of section 13-25-129, 6A C.R.S. (1987), which permits the admission of certain statements made by children who have been victims of sexual abuse.”
People v. Wood, 743 P.2d 422 (Colo. 1987).
“scribing any act of sexual contact, intrusion, or penetration, as defined in section 18-3-401, performed with, by, or on the child declarant, not otherwise admissible by a statute or court rule which provides an exception to the objection of hearsay, may be admissible in any…”
People v. Wilson, 838 P.2d 284 (Colo. 1992).
“Before resolving the merits of the People’s claim, we first outline the procedural scheme created by section 13-25-129, 6A C.R.S. (1987), for admitting hearsay statements of child victims of unlawful sexual offenses, and then review our prior decisions that have considered the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(3) — 6 cases
People v. Wood, 743 P.2d 422 (Colo. 1987).
“scribing any act of sexual contact, intrusion, or penetration, as defined in section 18-3-401, performed with, by, or on the child declarant, not otherwise admissible by a statute or court rule which provides an exception to the objection of hearsay, may be admissible in any…”
People v. Dist. Court of El Paso Cnty., 776 P.2d 1083 (Colo. 1989).
“(1987), and that the child’s statements were unreliable and therefore inadmissible hearsay under section 13-25-129. We issued a rule to show cause, and now make the rule absolute and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
People v. Wilson, 838 P.2d 284 (Colo. 1992).
“Before resolving the merits of the People’s claim, we first outline the procedural scheme created by section 13-25-129, 6A C.R.S. (1987), for admitting hearsay statements of child victims of unlawful sexual offenses, and then review our prior decisions that have considered the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(5) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(5)(a) — 8 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(5)(b)(I) — 2 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(6) — 4 cases
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(7) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(l)(a) — 12 cases
People v. Dist. Court of El Paso Cnty., 776 P.2d 1083 (Colo. 1989).
“(1987), and that the child’s statements were unreliable and therefore inadmissible hearsay under section 13-25-129. We issued a rule to show cause, and now make the rule absolute and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
People v. Bowers, 801 P.2d 511 (Colo. 1990).
“ult, the court of appeals held that the People failed to establish the necessary foundational requirements for admitting the child's hearsay statements into evidence under the residual hearsay exceptions created by CRE 803(24) and CRE 804(b)(5) and also failed to satisfy the…”
People v. Wood, 743 P.2d 422 (Colo. 1987).
“scribing any act of sexual contact, intrusion, or penetration, as defined in section 18-3-401, performed with, by, or on the child declarant, not otherwise admissible by a statute or court rule which provides an exception to the objection of hearsay, may be admissible in any…”
People v. Whitman, 205 P.3d 371 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“Thus, we conclude the court did not abuse its *381 discretion in finding the girls were competent to testify.”
People v. Wilson, 838 P.2d 284 (Colo. 1992).
“Before resolving the merits of the People’s claim, we first outline the procedural scheme created by section 13-25-129, 6A C.R.S. (1987), for admitting hearsay statements of child victims of unlawful sexual offenses, and then review our prior decisions that have considered the…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(l)(a)(b) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(l)(b) — 5 cases
People v. Dist. Court of El Paso Cnty., 776 P.2d 1083 (Colo. 1989).
“(1987), and that the child’s statements were unreliable and therefore inadmissible hearsay under section 13-25-129. We issued a rule to show cause, and now make the rule absolute and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(l)(b)(I) — 1 case
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-129(l)(b)(II) — 8 cases
People v. Bowers, 801 P.2d 511 (Colo. 1990).
“ult, the court of appeals held that the People failed to establish the necessary foundational requirements for admitting the child's hearsay statements into evidence under the residual hearsay exceptions created by CRE 803(24) and CRE 804(b)(5) and also failed to satisfy the…”
Stevens v. People, 796 P.2d 946 (Colo. 1990).
“We granted certiorari to review the defendant's assertion that the trial court erred in holding that hearsay statements admitted pursuant to the child hearsay statute, § 13-25-129, 6A C.R.S. (1987), were sufficiently corroborated to be admissible by the child-victims' use of…”
People v. Dist. Court of El Paso Cnty., 776 P.2d 1083 (Colo. 1989).
“(1987), and that the child’s statements were unreliable and therefore inadmissible hearsay under section 13-25-129. We issued a rule to show cause, and now make the rule absolute and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.