People in the Interest of L.E.R-N.
2025 COA 16. No. 23CA0059. Colorado Children’s Code—Delinquency Adjudications—Custodial Interrogations—Statements or Admissions—Presence of Parent, Guardian, or Legal or Physical Custodian—Prior Inconsistent Statements—Sufficiency of Evidence.
February 13, 2025
Police followed a stolen car into an apartment complex parking lot, where they saw L.E.R-N. load a television into the car’s back seat. L.E.R-N. attempted to flee into the apartment complex. Perez, who was sitting in the car’s front passenger seat, told officers that L.E.R-N. had driven the car to the apartment complex. Officers searched the car and found a handgun with a large-capacity magazine on the floorboard by the passenger seat. Perez told officers that L.E.R-N. had handed the gun to him when they got to the apartment complex. Other officers found L.E.R-N. and brought him back to the scene. L.E.R-N.’s mother also arrived and spoke with an officer about what had occurred. As L.E.R-N. was handcuffed in the back seat of a police car, an officer asked his mother if she wanted them to question him. L.E.R-N. and his mother agreed to questioning. The officer read L.E.R-N. and his mother an advisement of their rights, which both acknowledged in writing. L.E.R-N.’s mother gave the officers permission to interview L.E.R-N. in her presence, but she rescinded that permission after calling L.E.R-N.’s caseworker. At that point, the officer ended the interview and did not ask any more questions. L.E.R-N. was charged in a delinquency petition with second degree aggravated motor vehicle theft, possession of a handgun by a juvenile, and possession of a large-capacity magazine. He moved pretrial to suppress the statements he made in response to the officer’s questions, asserting that his mother was not “present” during the interrogation because she was on the phone. The juvenile court denied the motion, and L.E.R-N. was adjudicated delinquent on all three counts after a trial.
On appeal, L.E.R-N. argued that the juvenile court erred by denying his motion to suppress because his mother was not “present” when the officer asked him two questions about how he got the car. He asserted that his mother’s physical presence during his interrogation failed to satisfy the requirements of CRS § 19-2.5 203(1) because she was on the phone when the officer’s questioning began and therefore was not fully attentive to the interrogation. It is undisputed that L.E.R-N.’s mother was physically present during the interrogation. The court of appeals held that § 19-2.5 203(1), which requires a parent to be present during a juvenile’s custodial interrogation, does not include a parental attentiveness requirement. Accordingly, L.E.R-N.’s mother’s physical presence at the interrogation satisfied the statute, his statements were admissible, and the juvenile court did not err in denying the motion to suppress.
L.E.R-N. also contended that there was insufficient evidence to support his adjudications for possession of a handgun and a large-capacity magazine. He maintained that Perez’s statements to police that L.E.R-N. handed him the gun were the only evidence at trial that L.E.R-N. possessed the handgun and magazine, and that those statements were admissible under § 16-10-201 only for impeachment and were thus wrongly introduced as prior inconsistent statements. Section § 16-10-201 allows inconsistent statements to be used as substantive evidence of the matter asserted where (1) the witness was given an opportunity while testifying to explain or deny the statement, or the witness remains available to give further testimony at trial; and (2) the previous inconsistent statement purportedly relates to a matter within the witness’s knowledge. L.E.R-N. did not contest that the second element was met. Here, Perez testified that L.E.R-N. did not hand him anything when they arrived at the apartment complex, and this statement was clearly inconsistent with his statements to police. The prosecutor then asked him a series of questions that gave him the opportunity to explain or deny the statements, and Perez effectively denied them. Because Perez had the opportunity to explain or deny his prior inconsistent statements, those statements were admissible under § 16-10-201(1) both to impeach Perez’s testimony and to establish that L.E.R-N. handed him the gun. Further, the juvenile court found that Perez’s statements to the officers were credible.
L.E.R-N. also argued that the evidence was insufficient because Perez’s prior inconsistent statements were the only evidence that L.E.R-N. possessed the gun and magazine. However, other evidence supported the adjudications, including evidence that the gun and magazine were found in a vehicle L.E.R-N. was driving, Perez’s trial testimony that the gun was not his and was already in the car when he got in, and social media posts showing L.E.R-N. holding a gun that was similar to the gun found in the car. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence to reasonably support a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that L.E.R-N. possessed the gun and magazine.
The judgment was affirmed.