otg
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2010
- Messages
- 2,410
- Reaction score
- 184
You are correct, johnjay. From a previous post about a discussion with an attorney (http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...tatutes-relating-to-JonBenet-Ramsey%92s-death) (bbm):
The second possibility of the Grand Jurys reasoning could be that they felt another third party was responsible for the act which caused her death, and that individual could not be held criminally responsible. However, the Ramsey parents would still be held ultimately responsible. Obviously, we are speaking here about the possibility that their son Burke committed the act which caused his sisters death. Since at the time of the crime, he was 9 years old, in the eyes of Colorado law he was incapable of forming criminal intent. However, that does not mean that an adult who acts as an accessory cannot be charged. Applicable Annotations from C.R.S. 18-1-801 (Insufficient age) state the following:
Although a child under the age of 10 cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. In enacting the statute, the general assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts, not that such persons could not commit the acts. People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092, (Colo. App. 1991).
The reference to People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092 (http://www.leagle.com/decision/19911...%20v.%20MILLER) was from a case in which a parent appealed her conviction of Contributing the Delinquency of a Minor because the child was too young to be charged with a crime (theft). No doubt you know this case, but Ill briefly describe it. From that Appeals Court opinion:
Miller first contends that the trial court erred in denying her motion for judgment of acquittal on the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. She asserts that her eight-year-old son was not charged with theft because a child under the age of ten cannot be charged and convicted of any offense. Section 18-1-801, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 8B). Thus, according to Miller, since it was impossible for her son to violate any state law, she cannot be found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
The Appeals Courts decision states:
Here, the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. The General Assembly is concerned with adults who encourage children under eighteen to commit crimes. The statute does not require that the minor be charged or convicted of a crime nor does it require the minor to be over the age of ten.
Further, Miller's reliance on § 18-1-801 is misplaced. Although a child under the age of ten cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. Rather, in enacting § 18-1-801, the General Assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts. It did not determine that such persons could not commit the acts themselves. Cf. Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 108 S.Ct. 2687, 101 L.Ed.2d 702 (1988). We therefore conclude that even though Miller's son was only eight years old at the time of her offense, Miller could be found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
Further, Miller's reliance on § 18-1-801 is misplaced. Although a child under the age of ten cannot be charged with an offense, it does not necessarily follow that the child cannot violate the law. Rather, in enacting § 18-1-801, the General Assembly determined those persons who could be held responsible for their criminal acts. It did not determine that such persons could not commit the acts themselves. Cf. Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 108 S.Ct. 2687, 101 L.Ed.2d 702 (1988). We therefore conclude that even though Miller's son was only eight years old at the time of her offense, Miller could be found guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
And in C.R.S. 18-6-701 (Contributing to the delinquency of a minor), Annotations, it states:
An adult may be charged with violating this statute regardless of whether the minor was actually charged with or convicted of a crime or whether the minor was old enough to be charged with or convicted of a crime. People v. Miller, 830 P.2d 1092 (Colo. App. 1991).
