Page:Colorado State Constitution (2020).pdf/6

 (1901); Warner v. Town of Gunnison, 2 Colo. App. 430, 31 P. 238 (1892). (Compare: Town of Eaton v. Bouslog, 133 Colo. 130, 292 P.2d 343 (1956), and Otero Irr. Dist. v. Enderud, 122 Colo. 136, 220 P.2d 862 (1950); Crystal Park Co. v. Morton, 27 Colo. App. 74, 146 P. 566 (1915); Thompson v. DeWeese-Dye Ditch Co., 25 Colo. 243, 53 P. 507 (1898); Seidler v. Seely, 8 Colo. App. 499, 46 P. 848 (1896); Sand Creek Lateral Irrigation v. Davis, 17 Colo. 326, 29 P. 742 (1892).)

(2) For jurisdiction of federal court, when (properly) invoked, see County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Company, 360 U.S. 185, 79 S. Ct. 1060, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1163 (1959), and Louisiana Power and Light Company v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25, 79 S. Ct. 1070, 3 L. Ed. 2d 1058 (1959).

(3) For taking of private property for private use, see § 14 of this article; for deprivation of property without due process of law, see § 25 of this article; for eminent domain, see articles 1 to 7 of title 38.

Section 16.Criminal prosecutions - rights of defendant. In criminal prosecutions the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person and by counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation; to meet the witnesses against him face to face; to have process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf, and a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.

Source: Entire article added, effective August 1, 1876, see L. 1877, p. 31.

Editor's note: In a United States supreme court case (Escobedo v. State of Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 84 S. Ct. 1758, 12 L. Ed. 2d 977 (1964)) the court held that "where the investigation is no longer a matter of general inquiry into an unsolved crime, but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police custody, the police carry out a process of interrogations that lends itself to incriminating statements, the suspect has requested and been denied an opportunity to consult with his lawyer and the police have not effectively warned him of his absolute constitutional right to remain silent" such suspect had been denied his constitutional rights and his confession was not admissible.

In Washington v. People, 158 Colo. 115, 405 P.2d 735 (1965), the Colorado supreme court held the Escobedo case did not apply where accused made a voluntary confession to a friend prior to police interrogation as the Escobedo case was concerned with police tactics during interrogation.

In Ruark v. People, 158 Colo. 110, 405 P.2d 751 (1965), the Colorado supreme court held the Escobedo case did not apply retrospectively to entitle one to relief in case that had been previously decided.

Cross references: For duty of court to inform an accused of his right to counsel and the nature of the charges against him, see Crim. P. 5(a)(2) and § 16-7-207; for accused's right to compel attendance of witnesses, see § 16-9-101; for dismissal of criminal case for failure to bring to trial within time period, see Crim. P. 48(b)(1) and (b)(5); for self-incrimination and double jeopardy, see § 18 of this article; for right to trial by jury in criminal cases, see § 23 of this article; for due process in criminal proceedings, see § 25 of this article.

Colorado Revised Statutes 2020