(1) For the purposes of this section, "petty offense" means any crime or offense classified as a petty offense or, if not so classified, which is punishable by imprisonment other than in a correctional facility for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by both such imprisonment and fine, and includes any violation of a municipal ordinance or offense which was not considered a crime at common law; except that violation of a municipal traffic ordinance which does not constitute a criminal offense or any other municipal charter, municipal ordinance, or county ordinance offense which is neither criminal nor punishable by imprisonment under any counterpart state statute shall not constitute a petty offense. No child under the age of eighteen years shall be entitled to a trial by jury for a violation of a municipal ordinance or a county ordinance for which imprisonment in jail is not a possible penalty. Nothing in this subsection (1) shall prohibit a municipality or county from granting a right to trial by jury for ordinance violations.
(2) A defendant charged with a petty offense shall be entitled to a jury trial if, within twenty-one days after entry of a plea, the defendant makes a request to the court for a jury trial, in writing, and tenders to the court a jury fee of twenty-five dollars unless the fee is waived by the judge because of the indigence of the defendant. The jury shall consist of three jurors unless a greater number, not to exceed six, is requested by the defendant in said jury demand. If the charge is dismissed or the defendant is acquitted of the charge or if the defendant, having paid the jury fee, files with the court at least seven days before the scheduled trial date a written waiver of jury trial, the jury fee shall be refunded.
(3) At the time of arraignment for any petty offense in this state, the judge shall advise any defendant not represented by counsel of the defendant's right to trial by jury, of the requirement that the defendant, if he or she desires to invoke his or her right to trial by jury, request such trial by jury within twenty-one days after entry of a plea, in writing, of the number of jurors allowed by law, and of the requirement that the defendant, if he or she desires to invoke his or her right to trial by jury, tender to the court within twenty-one days after entry of a plea a jury fee of twenty-five dollars unless the fee is waived by the judge because of the indigence of the defendant.
Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 238, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-10-109. L. 79: (1) amended, p. 679, § 4, effective July 1. L. 82: (1) amended, p. 655, § 6, effective January 1, 1983. L. 88: (1) amended, p. 667, § 2, effective July 1. L. 93: (1) amended, p. 1728, § 6, effective July 1. L. 96:
(1) amended, p. 1680, § 3, effective January 1, 1997. L. 2001: (1) amended, p. 859, § 8, effective July 1. L. 2005: (2) and (3) amended, p. 427, § 9, effective July 28. L. 2012: (2) and (3) amended, (SB 12-175), ch. 208, p. 853, § 82, effective July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Roalstad v. City of Lafayette, Colorado, 2015 COA 146 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 60× “, is of vital concern to all of the people of the state of Colorado and that the interests of the state as a whole are so great that the general assembly shall retain sole legislative jurisdiction over the matter, which is hereby declared to be of statewide concern.”
Byrd v. Stavely, 113 P.3d 1273 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 24× “Consequently, we conclude that none of the offenses listed in § 42-4-1301 is considered petty for the purposes of § 16-10-109, and-therefore, defendants are not required to comport with that section to obtain a trial by jury.”
Lininger v. City of Sheridan Ex Rel. People, 648 P.2d 1097 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 19× “In July 1981, Lininger filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the municipal court had abused its discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction in denying his jury request.”
Christie v. People of Aurora Ex Rel. State, 837 P.2d 1237 (Colo. 1992).
· cites it 9× “The court, construing section 13-10-103, held “that [Article 10 of] Title 13 does not apply to home rule cities except for the ‘right to trial by jury’ for petty offenses provided for in section 16-10-109, CRS.” The en banc court concluded that the defendant had a substantive…”
People v. Onesimo Romero, 746 P.2d 534 (Colo. 1987).
· cites it 8× “(1982) [5] for petty offenses and section 16-10-109(1), 8 C.R.S. (1980), [6] and determined that although denominated a misdemeanor, violation of section 1-13-709 is a petty offense in terms of the penalty imposed.”
People v. Dist. Court, City & Cnty. of Denver, 953 P.2d 184 (Colo. 1998).
· cites it 4× “2d at 8-12 , provides: The right of a person who is accused of an offense other than a noncriminal traffic infraction or offense, or other than a municipal charter or ordinance violation as provided in section 16-10-109(1), to have a trial by jury is inviolate and a matter of…”
People v. Dist. Court of Colorado's Seventeenth Jud. Dist., 843 P.2d 6 (Colo. 1992).
· cites it 6× “Section 16-10-101 provides: The right of a person who is accused of an offense other than a noncriminal traffic infraction or offense, or other than a municipal charter or ordinance violation as provided in section 16-10-109(1), to have a trial by jury is inviolate and a matter…”
People of City of Thornton v. Horan, 556 P.2d 1217 (Colo. 1976).
· cites it 6× “Except for the provisions relating to the method of salary payment for municipal judges, the right to a trial by jury for petty offenses provided for in section 16-10-109, C.R.S.1973, rules of procedure promulgated by the supreme court, and appellate procedure, this article may…”
Garcia v. People, 615 P.2d 698 (Colo. 1980).
· cites it 3× “23; section 16-10-109, C.R.S. 1973 (now in 1978 Repl.”
Aurora by & on Behalf of People v. Rhodes, 689 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1984).
· cites it 10× “Laws 654-55, so that the statute now reads: The general assembly finds that the right to a trial by jury for petty offenses, as defined in section 16-10-109, C.R.S.1973, is of vital concern to all of the people of the state of Colorado and that the interests of the state as a…”
United States v. James D. Soderna, 82 F.3d 1370 (7th Cir. 1996).
“,- Cal. Penal Code §§ 19.6 , 19.8 (no jury trial for "infraction,” which is defined as an offense for which there can be no imprisonment and for which the maximum fine does not exceed $250); Colo.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-10-109(1): 10 cases
Roalstad v. City of Lafayette, Colorado, 2015 COA 146 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
“, is of vital concern to all of the people of the state of Colorado and that the interests of the state as a whole are so great that the general assembly shall retain sole legislative jurisdiction over the matter, which is hereby declared to be of statewide concern.”
Byrd v. Stavely, 113 P.3d 1273 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
“Consequently, we conclude that none of the offenses listed in § 42-4-1301 is considered petty for the purposes of § 16-10-109, and-therefore, defendants are not required to comport with that section to obtain a trial by jury.”
People v. Onesimo Romero, 746 P.2d 534 (Colo. 1987).
“(1982) [5] for petty offenses and section 16-10-109(1), 8 C.R.S. (1980), [6] and determined that although denominated a misdemeanor, violation of section 1-13-709 is a petty offense in terms of the penalty imposed.”
People v. Dist. Court, City & Cnty. of Denver, 953 P.2d 184 (Colo. 1998).
“2d at 8-12 , provides: The right of a person who is accused of an offense other than a noncriminal traffic infraction or offense, or other than a municipal charter or ordinance violation as provided in section 16-10-109(1), to have a trial by jury is inviolate and a matter of…”
People v. Dist. Court of Colorado's Seventeenth Jud. Dist., 843 P.2d 6 (Colo. 1992).
“Section 16-10-101 provides: The right of a person who is accused of an offense other than a noncriminal traffic infraction or offense, or other than a municipal charter or ordinance violation as provided in section 16-10-109(1), to have a trial by jury is inviolate and a matter…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-10-109(2): 5 cases
Lininger v. City of Sheridan Ex Rel. People, 648 P.2d 1097 (Colo. Ct. App. 1982).
“In July 1981, Lininger filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the municipal court had abused its discretion and exceeded its jurisdiction in denying his jury request.”
Byrd v. Stavely, 113 P.3d 1273 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
“Consequently, we conclude that none of the offenses listed in § 42-4-1301 is considered petty for the purposes of § 16-10-109, and-therefore, defendants are not required to comport with that section to obtain a trial by jury.”
Roalstad v. City of Lafayette, Colorado, 2015 COA 146 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
“, is of vital concern to all of the people of the state of Colorado and that the interests of the state as a whole are so great that the general assembly shall retain sole legislative jurisdiction over the matter, which is hereby declared to be of statewide concern.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-10-109(3): 1 case
Byrd v. Stavely, 113 P.3d 1273 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
“Consequently, we conclude that none of the offenses listed in § 42-4-1301 is considered petty for the purposes of § 16-10-109, and-therefore, defendants are not required to comport with that section to obtain a trial by jury.”
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.