Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 16
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-10-201 (2026)

Inconsistent statement of witness - competency of evidence

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

(1) Where a witness in a criminal trial has made a previous statement inconsistent with his testimony at the trial, the previous inconsistent statement may be shown by any otherwise competent evidence and is admissible not only for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of the witness, but also for the purpose of establishing a fact to which his testimony and the inconsistent statement relate, if:

(a) The witness, while testifying, was given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement or the witness is still available to give further testimony in the trial; and

(b) The previous inconsistent statement purports to relate to a matter within the witness's own knowledge.

Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 238, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 39-10-201.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 79 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: 31. People v. Salas, 2017 COA 63 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
31. People v. Salas, 2017 COA 63 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 14× “The prosecutor objected, arguing that the video was not admissible under section 16-10-201, C.R.S. 2016, because grandmother had not denied at trial that she had made any inconsistent statements, in the interview.”
Castillo v. People, 2018 CO 62 (Colo. 2018). · cites it 6× “The People also emphasize that another of defendant’s companions allegedly told the police during her initial interview that defendant got out of the car after somebody said something to defendant “that got him mad,” a statement which was admitted as an inconsistent statement…”
Montoya v. People, 740 P.2d 992 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 46× “The court of appeals held that the trial court, pursuant to section 16-10-201, 8A C.R.S. (1986), properly admitted extrinsic evidence of prior inconsistent statements made by several prosecution witnesses even though the prosecution failed to follow the procedures of CRE 613 by…”
People v. Saiz, 32 P.3d 441 (Colo. 2001). · cites it 19× “In response to objections about this approach to impeachment by prior inconsistent statement, in which the out-of-court statements were introduced through a witness other than the person making them, defense counsel made clear that he was nevertheless offering the videotaped…”
Farrar v. People, 208 P.3d 702 (Colo. 2009). · cites it 10× “§ 16-10-201, C.R.S. (2008) (prior inconsistent statements made at trial are admitted as substantive evidence); see also People v.”
People v. Allee, 77 P.3d 831 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 11× “Although the prosecution did not offer the victim's statements to the emergency room physician under § 16-10-201, the statements were nevertheless admissible on that basis, and I conclude the trial court did not err in admitting them.”
People v. Trujillo, 49 P.3d 316 (Colo. 2002). · cites it 14× “For example, in criminal cases, section 16-10-201, 6 C.R.S. (2001), [4] permits admission of the witness' prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence of the defendant's guilt if the foundational requirements of the statute are met.”
People v. Christian, 632 P.2d 1031 (Colo. 1981). · cites it 6× “The court ruled that the prosecution would be permitted to impeach her with her prior statements and, upon proper foundation, the statements could be admitted pursuant to section 16-10-201, C.R.S. 1973 (1978 Repl.”
People v. Madril, 746 P.2d 1329 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 17× “” In contrast to this evidentiary rule, section 16-10-201, 8A C.R.S. (1986), provides as follows: (1) Where a witness in a criminal trial has made a previous statement inconsistent with his testimony at the trial, the previous inconsistent statement may be shown by any otherwise…”
People v. Aldrich, 849 P.2d 821 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 12× “to a deputy sheriff as being the prior inconsistent statements of a witness, the court, acting pursuant to § 16-10-201, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 9A), permitted the deputy sheriff to testify that B.”
People v. Mulligan, 568 P.2d 449 (Colo. 1977). · cites it 13× “Appellant contends the district court erred in the following rulings: (1) refusal to compel disclosure of the confidential informer’s identity; (2) denial of continuance because of pretrial publicity; (3) permitting the People to call William F.”
DeBELLA v. People, 233 P.3d 664 (Colo. 2010). · cites it 3× “Indeed, the video was admitted as evidence on the prosecution's motion as a prior inconsistent statement under section 16-10-201, C.R.S. (2009). Moreover, as the only complete recounting of the assaults, the videotape was the linchpin of the prosecution's case against DeBella.”
Show all 79 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-10-201(1) — 9 cases
People v. Allee, 77 P.3d 831 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “Although the prosecution did not offer the victim's statements to the emergency room physician under § 16-10-201, the statements were nevertheless admissible on that basis, and I conclude the trial court did not err in admitting them.”
People v. Thomas, 345 P.3d 959 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
People v. Saiz, 32 P.3d 441 (Colo. 2001). “In response to objections about this approach to impeachment by prior inconsistent statement, in which the out-of-court statements were introduced through a witness other than the person making them, defense counsel made clear that he was nevertheless offering the videotaped…”
People v. Leverton, 2017 COA 34 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017).
Peo v. Underwood (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-10-201(1)(a) — 9 cases
People v. Allee, 77 P.3d 831 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “Although the prosecution did not offer the victim's statements to the emergency room physician under § 16-10-201, the statements were nevertheless admissible on that basis, and I conclude the trial court did not err in admitting them.”
People v. Thomas, 345 P.3d 959 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
People v. Madonna, 651 P.2d 378 (Colo. 1982).
People v. Banks, 412 P.3d 417 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
Peo v. Underwood (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-10-201(1)(b) — 2 cases
People v. Banks, 412 P.3d 417 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
Peo v. Underwood (Colo. Ct. App. 2025).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-10-201(l)(a) — 4 cases
People v. Madonna, 651 P.2d 378 (Colo. 1982).
People v. Madril, 746 P.2d 1329 (Colo. 1987). “” In contrast to this evidentiary rule, section 16-10-201, 8A C.R.S. (1986), provides as follows: (1) Where a witness in a criminal trial has made a previous statement inconsistent with his testimony at the trial, the previous inconsistent statement may be shown by any otherwise…”
People v. Leverton, 2017 COA 34 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017).
People v. Aguirre, 839 P.2d 483 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
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.