Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-106 (2026)

Who may not testify

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) The following persons shall not be witnesses:

(a) Persons who are of unsound mind at the time of their production for examination;

(b) (I) Children under ten years of age who appear incapable of receiving just impressions of the facts respecting which they are examined or of relating them truly.

(II) This proscription does not apply to a child under ten years of age, in any civil or criminal proceeding for child abuse, sexual abuse, a sexual offense pursuant to part 4 of article 3 of title 18, C.R.S., or incest, when the child is able to describe or relate in language appropriate for a child of that age the events or facts respecting which the child is examined.

Source: L. 1883: p. 290, § 2. G.S. § 3648. R.S. 08: § 7273. C.L. § 6562. CSA: C. 177, § 8. CRS 53: §153-1-6. C.R.S. 1963: § 154-1-6. L. 83: (1)(b) amended, p. 635, § 1, effective April 22. L. 89: (1)(b)(II) amended, p. 862, § 1, effective April 12. L. 2003: (1)(b)(II) amended, p. 1433, § 24, effective April 29.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: People v. Dist. Court, in & for Summit Cnty..
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Dist. Court, in & for Summit Cnty. (Colo. 1990). · cites it 106× “was not qualified to testify as a witness under section 13-90-106. The court stated that: There are four general elements of competency for a witness to testify.”
Oldsen v. People (Colo. 1986). · cites it 30× “" After the conclusion of the defendant's trial, section 13-90-106 was amended by the addition of section (1)(b)(II) which declares that the statutory proscription does not apply to a child under ten years of age, in any civil or criminal proceeding for sexual abuse, sexual…”
People v. Whitman (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “Under section 13-90-106(1)(b)(II), C.R.S.2007, a child may testify in a criminal sexual abuse proceeding "when the child is able to describe or relate in language appropriate for a child of that age the events or facts respecting which the child is examined.”
People v. Bonan (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “See § 13-90-106(1)(b)(II), C.R.S. 2014 (A child may only testify in a criminal sexual assault proceeding "when the child is able to describe or relate in language appropriate for a child of that age the events or facts respecting which the child is examined.”
People v. Piro (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 10× “Section 13-90-106, C.R.S.1973, provides that persons who are of "unsound mind" at the time of their production for examination may not testify.”
People v. Aldrich (Colo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “Section 13-90-106, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
People v. Wittrein (Colo. 2009). · cites it 2× “We disagree. K.H. was nine years old at the time of the trial.”
People v. Seacrist (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 14× “Specifically, defendant contends that the witness' competency should have been evaluated under § 13-90-106(1)(b)(I), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
People v. Melara (Colo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “But that motion also acknowledged section 13-90-106, C.R.S. 2024, which allows a child sexual assault victim under age ten to testify 44 “when the child is able to describe or relate in language appropriate for a child of that age the events or facts respecting which the child…”
People v. Estorga (Colo. 1980). · cites it 3× “1963, 154-1-6, is currently codified at section 13-90-106, C.R.S. 1973. 7 On retrial, competency of the victim should be determined in light of the record there developed.”
People v. Trujillo (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 7× “Section 13-90-106(l)(b)(I), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.”
People v. Vialpando (Colo. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 3× “Defense counsel had an ample *224 opportunity for comprehensive cross-examination of this witness and the limitation imposed during the second cross-examination was not error. V.”
Show all 48 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-106(1)(B)(II) — 1 case
People v. Dist. Court, in & for Summit Cnty. (Colo. 1990). “was not qualified to testify as a witness under section 13-90-106. The court stated that: There are four general elements of competency for a witness to testify.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-106(1)(a) — 5 cases
People v. Osorio-Bahena (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
Burlington N. R.R. v. Hood (Colo. 1990).
v. Collins (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
People v. Dist. Court, Etc. (Colo. 1982).
NorthMarq Fin., LLC, a Nebraska Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co., a Florida com (D. Colo. 2025).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-106(1)(b) — 4 cases
Oldsen v. People (Colo. 1986). “" After the conclusion of the defendant's trial, section 13-90-106 was amended by the addition of section (1)(b)(II) which declares that the statutory proscription does not apply to a child under ten years of age, in any civil or criminal proceeding for sexual abuse, sexual…”
People v. Dist. Court, in & for Summit Cnty. (Colo. 1990). “was not qualified to testify as a witness under section 13-90-106. The court stated that: There are four general elements of competency for a witness to testify.”
People v. Moore (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
People Ex Rel. Ras (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-106(1)(b)(I) — 3 cases
People v. Dist. Court, in & for Summit Cnty. (Colo. 1990). “was not qualified to testify as a witness under section 13-90-106. The court stated that: There are four general elements of competency for a witness to testify.”
People v. Seacrist (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “Specifically, defendant contends that the witness' competency should have been evaluated under § 13-90-106(1)(b)(I), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Marriage of Conley (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-106(1)(b)(II) — 12 cases
People v. Dist. Court, in & for Summit Cnty. (Colo. 1990). “was not qualified to testify as a witness under section 13-90-106. The court stated that: There are four general elements of competency for a witness to testify.”
People v. Bonan (Colo. Ct. App. 2014). “See § 13-90-106(1)(b)(II), C.R.S. 2014 (A child may only testify in a criminal sexual assault proceeding "when the child is able to describe or relate in language appropriate for a child of that age the events or facts respecting which the child is examined.”
People v. Wittrein (Colo. 2009). “We disagree. K.H. was nine years old at the time of the trial.”
People v. Whitman (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “Under section 13-90-106(1)(b)(II), C.R.S.2007, a child may testify in a criminal sexual abuse proceeding "when the child is able to describe or relate in language appropriate for a child of that age the events or facts respecting which the child is examined.”
People v. Diefenderfer (Colo. 1989).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-106(1)(b)(IT) — 1 case
People v. Wittrein (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-106(l)(a) — 5 cases
People v. Alley (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
People v. McGhee (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
People v. Juv. Court, City & Cnty. of Denver (Colo. 1997).
People v. Dist. Court of the Fifth Jud. Dist. ex rel. Cnty. of Clear Creek (Colo. 1982).
People v. Galloway (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-106(l)(b) — 7 cases
Oldsen v. People (Colo. 1986). “" After the conclusion of the defendant's trial, section 13-90-106 was amended by the addition of section (1)(b)(II) which declares that the statutory proscription does not apply to a child under ten years of age, in any civil or criminal proceeding for sexual abuse, sexual…”
People v. Dist. Court, in & for Summit Cnty. (Colo. 1990). “was not qualified to testify as a witness under section 13-90-106. The court stated that: There are four general elements of competency for a witness to testify.”
People v. Galloway (Colo. Ct. App. 1986).
People v. Moore (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
People ex rel. R.A.S. (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-106(l)(b)(I) — 5 cases
People v. Vialpando (Colo. Ct. App. 1990). “Defense counsel had an ample *224 opportunity for comprehensive cross-examination of this witness and the limitation imposed during the second cross-examination was not error. V.”
People v. Trujillo (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). “Section 13-90-106(l)(b)(I), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.”
People v. Dist. Court, in & for Summit Cnty. (Colo. 1990). “was not qualified to testify as a witness under section 13-90-106. The court stated that: There are four general elements of competency for a witness to testify.”
People v. Hise (Colo. Ct. App. 1986).
People v. Seacrist (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “Specifically, defendant contends that the witness' competency should have been evaluated under § 13-90-106(1)(b)(I), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-90-106(l)(b)(II) — 8 cases
People v. Dist. Court, in & for Summit Cnty. (Colo. 1990). “was not qualified to testify as a witness under section 13-90-106. The court stated that: There are four general elements of competency for a witness to testify.”
People v. Whitman (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “Under section 13-90-106(1)(b)(II), C.R.S.2007, a child may testify in a criminal sexual abuse proceeding "when the child is able to describe or relate in language appropriate for a child of that age the events or facts respecting which the child is examined.”
People v. Gillispie (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
People v. Trujillo (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). “Section 13-90-106(l)(b)(I), C.R.S. (1987 Repl.”
People v. Dist. Court of El Paso Cnty. (Colo. 1989).
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.