People v. Clark-Collins, 572 P.3d 604 (Colo. 2025)

In People v. Clark-Collins, the Supreme Court of Colorado remanded the case ordering the district court to amend its standing order on the presentation and scope of testimony and evidence at a reverse transfer hearing as follows:  

“While the trial court has significant discretion regarding the presentation of evidence and the application of the rules of evidence, there are limits. In this case, we conclude that the trial court exceeded its authority in several ways. There is no authority for the trial court to order that prior to the hearing the juvenile must provide a witness list or a statement of each witnesses’ anticipated testimony; further, the court cannot require the juvenile to submit all documentary evidence they wish the court to consider, nor reduce all expert reports to writing in advance of the hearing. Finally, the trial court’s statement that it “will not accept testimony from witnesses regarding how the juvenile grew up, how they did in school, or information from years past unless directly related to the [c]ourt’s assessment of the juvenile’s maturity at present” is an overly narrow interpretation of what is relevant for Factor IV. While the court may exclude evidence that is not relevant, “considerations of the juvenile’s home environment, emotional attitude and pattern of living” are relevant to determining the current maturity of the juvenile pursuant to Factor IV. The court may, however, limit testimony that is cumulative.”