The right of a person who is accused of an
offense other than a noncriminal traffic infraction or offense, civil infraction, or offense other
than a municipal charter, municipal ordinance, or county ordinance violation as provided in
section 16-10-109 (1), to have a trial by jury is inviolate and a matter of substantive due process
of law as distinguished from one of "practice and procedure". The people also have the right to
refuse to consent to a waiver of a trial or sentencing determination by jury in all cases in which
the accused has the right to request a trial or sentencing determination by jury.
Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 235, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-10-101. L. 82: Entire section
amended, p. 655, § 5, effective January 1, 1983. L. 88: Entire section amended, p. 667, § 1,
effective July 1. L. 89: Entire section amended, p. 828, § 35, effective July 1. L. 2001: Entire
section amended, p. 859, § 7, effective July 1. L. 2002, 3rd Ex. Sess.: Entire section amended, p.
16, § 11, effective July 12. L. 2022: Entire section amended, (HB 22-1229), ch. 68, p. 342, § 14,
effective March 1.
Editor's note: Section 47 of chapter 68 (HB 22-1229), Session Laws of Colorado 2022,
provides that the act amending this section is effective March 1, 2022, but the governor did not
approve the act until April 7, 2022.
Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 2002 act amending this
section, see section 16 of chapter 1 of the supplement to the Session Laws of Colorado 2002,
Third Extraordinary Session.
Notes of Decisions
People v. Dist. Court, City & Cnty. of Denver, 953 P.2d 184 (Colo. 1998).
· cites it 46× “In opposing Finley's motion for a bench trial, the People attempted to exercise their right to refuse a defendant's request to waive a jury trial pursuant to section 16-10-101, 6 C.R.S. (1997). The People argued that Finley's due process argument would arise in any similar…”
People v. Shell, 148 P.3d 162 (Colo. 2006).
· cites it 11× “Shell contends that she was entitled to a jury trial under the Federal and State Constitutions and section 16-10-101, C.R.S. (2006). We hold otherwise.”
People v. Norman, 703 P.2d 1261 (Colo. 1985).
· cites it 8× “Additionally, at the time of defendant's trial, section 16-10-101, 8 C.R.S. (1978), [10] provided that "[t]he right of a person who is accused of an offense to have a trial by jury is inviolate, and a matter of substantive due process of law as distinguished from one of…”
People v. Thompson, 121 P.3d 273 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “2d 940, 941 (1977); see § 16-10-101, C.R.S.2004 (the People have the right to refuse consent to defendant’s waiver of the right to a trial by jury).”
Ma v. People, 121 P.3d 205 (Colo. 2005).
· cites it 2× “See §§ 16-10-101 to 110, C.R.S. (2005). Therefore, we construe the term's meaning according to its common usage.”
Rice v. People, 565 P.2d 940 (Colo. 1977).
· cites it 3× “” Section 16-10-101, C.R.S. 1973. That such an *272 “inviolate” right has been voluntarily relinquished must be a matter of certainty and not implication.”
People v. Robinson, 187 P.3d 1166 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “§ 16-10-101, C.R.S.2007; People v. District Court, 843 P.”
Kourlis v. Port, 18 P.3d 770 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 5× “State of Illinois, taken in context with the remainder of the opinion and in conjunction with § 16-10-101, C.R.S. 1999, mandates a jury trial for defendant under the cireumstances presented here.”
v. Snider, 2021 COA 19 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “§ 16-10-101, C.R.S. 2020. Further, such a defendant is entitled to a unanimous jury verdict.”
People v. Rodgers, 756 P.2d 980 (Colo. 1988).
· cites it 2× “2d 1153, 1155 (1980); § 16-10-101, 8A C.R.S. (1986). It is well-established that a defendant may not be penalized by the exercise of his fifth amendment right to remain silent when he has been accused of a crime.”
People v. Walker, 318 P.3d 479 (Colo. 2014).
· cites it 2× “1998); see also § 16-10-101, C.R.S. (2013) (providing that the prosecution can refuse to consent to a defendant's jury trial waiver).”
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.