Criminal Law, 1216 COBJ, Vol. 45, No. 12 Pg. 27

• Author: Paul Sachs, J.

45 Colo.Law 27

Criminal Law

Vol. 45, No. 12 [Page 27]

The Colorado Lawyer

December, 2016

Paul Sachs, J.

The Right to a Jury Trial in Petty Offense Cases

Roalstad v. City of Lafayette makes clear that cities cannot deny the right to a jury trial for petty offenses by “decriminalizing” them. This article examines Roalstad and the statutory right to a jury trial in petty offense cases.

In Roalstad v. City of Lafayette,¹ the Colorado Court of Appeals reexamined the right to a jury trial in petty offense cases. The opinion makes clear that cities cannot deny the right to a jury trial for petty offenses by “decriminalizing” them. Rather, the statutory right to a jury trial is a substantive right granted the citizens of this state that cannot be abridged, except by the General Assembly.²

This article reviews Roalstad and the origin and extent of Colorado’s statutory right to a jury trial in petty offense cases.

Roalstad in the Lower Courts

Roalstad was charged with violating the City of Lafayette’s (Lafayette or the City) “vicious animal” ordinance when her dog allegedly bit the wife of the City’s finance manager. Lafayette’s vicious animal ordinance makes it unlawful to own a vicious animal as defined in the Lafayette Municipal Code (Code).^[3] Any person convicted of this offense is subject to a number of conditions as well as a mandatory fine.⁴ For a first offense where the animal’s attack resulted in something less than bodily injury, the owner is subject to only a few of the conditions and a fine of at least $250.⁵ For a first offense resulting in bodily injury, the fine is at least $500, and for any additional offense within 12 months of the initial violation, the fine is at least $750.⁶ The maximum fine under the Code is $1,000.⁷

The Code provides that “[i]t shall be unlawful for any person to violate, disobey, omit, neglect, refuse or fail to comply with . . . any provision of this Code, the City Charter or any other ordinance of the City of Lafayette . . . except that unless conduct is specifically designated criminal herein, any offense which is not punishable by imprisonment in jail is not criminal and is deemed decriminalized.”⁸ The Code also explicitly addresses jury trials and states that every person 18 years or older who complies with the Colorado statutes and rules of municipal court procedures is entitled to a jury trial unless “[t]he defendant is accused of violating a municipal ordinance or section of the municipal charter which ordinance or section of the municipal charter is neither criminal nor punishable by imprisonment under any counterpart state statute.”^[9] The City relied on this “decriminalizing” provision in opposing Roalstad’s request for a jury trial.

This was Roalstad’s first offense. Through counsel, she entered a not guilty plea and requested a jury trial pursuant to CRS § 16-10-109. It was undisputed that she followed the correct CRS § 16-10-109(2) procedure for requesting a jury trial. The municipal court denied both her request and her subsequent motion for reconsideration.^[10]

Roalstad filed a complaint in Boulder County District Court for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to CRCP 106(a)(4), 57, and 65. She requested that the district court declare void as a matter of law the municipal court’s order denying her a jury trial and issue an order declaring that she has a right to a jury trial in municipal court.^[11]

The district court granted the City’s motion to dismiss under CRCP 12(b)(5), concluding that the penalties of a minimum fine of $500, no restitution, and no possibility of incarceration, along with the minimal “seriousness” of the offense, meant that the plaintiff had no right to a jury trial.^[12]

Roalstad on Appeal

The sole issue on appeal was “whether the offense for which Roalstad was charged under the City’s ordinances was a petty offense under section 16-10-109, which would entitle her to a jury trial under that statute.”^[13] A detailed look at the Court of Appeals’ analysis is instructive for practitioners confronting this issue.

In reversing the district court and concluding that Roalstad did have a right to a jury trial, the Court first noted that the Colorado Constitution requires that an accused shall have the right to a trial by an impartial jury in criminal prosecutions.^[14] In 1969, in Austin v. City and County of Denver, the Colorado Supreme Court interpreted this state constitutional guarantee to a jury trial to exclude prosecutions of petty offenses.^[15] Soon after the Austin decision, however, the General Assembly reacted by enacting three statutes specifically providing for a right to a jury trial in municipal petty offense cases:^[16]

• CRS § 13-10-101, which provides, “[t]he General Assembly finds that the right to a trial by jury for petty offenses, as defined in section 16-10-109, C.R.S., 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.”

• CRS § 13-10-114(1), which provides, “[i]n any action before municipal court in which the defendant is entitled to a jury trial by the constitution or the general laws of the state, such party shall have a jury upon request.”

• CRS § 16-10-109(1), which defines a “petty offense” as “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 n or punishable by imprisonment under any counterpart state statute shall not constitute a petty offense.”

Taken together, these statutes effectively extend the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial to “petty offenses,” which the legislature defined as consisting of: (1) those that the municipality has self-classified as petty offenses; (2) those punishable by imprisonment for not more than six months; (3) those punishable by a fine of not more than $500; (4) those punishable by both imprisonment for less than six months and a fine of less than $500; or (5) those that were not considered a crime at common law. Note that offenses (2) through (4) have no minimum restrictions; for example, an offense punishable by just one day of “imprisonment” and/or a fine of one penny is defined as a petty offense and carries a right to jury trial (subject to the exceptions discussed below). Likewise, an offense unknown at common law apparently also carries a right to a jury trial regardless of the length of the potential jail term or amount of the fine.

As set forth in CRS § 16-10-109(1), quoted above, there are two exceptions to these expansive definitions of petty offense: a municipal traffic ordinance that does not constitute a criminal offense, and a municipal charter, municipal ordinance, or county ordinance offense that is not criminal...