2021 Colorado Code
Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure
Article 71 - Colorado Uniform Jury Selection and Service Act
§ 13-71-105. Qualifications for Juror Service

1. Any person who is a United States citizen and resides in a county or lives in such county more than fifty percent of the time, whether or not registered to vote, shall be qualified to serve as a trial or grand juror in such county. Citizenship and residency status on the date that the jury service is to be performed shall control.
2. A prospective trial or grand juror shall be disqualified, based on the following grounds:
   1. Being under the age of eighteen;
   2. Inability to read, speak, and understand the English language;
   3. Inability, by reason of a physical or mental disability, to render satisfactory juror service. Any person claiming this disqualification shall submit a letter, if the jury commissioner requests it, from a licensed physician, licensed physician assistant authorized under section 12-240-107 (6), licensed advanced practice nurse, or authorized Christian science practitioner, stating the nature of the disability and an opinion that such disability prevents the person from rendering satisfactory juror service. The physician, physician assistant, licensed advanced practice nurse, or authorized Christian science practitioner shall apply the following guideline: A person shall be capable of rendering satisfactory juror service if the person is able to perform a sedentary job requiring close attention for three consecutive business days for six hours per day, with short breaks in the morning and afternoon sessions.
   4. Sole responsibility for the daily care of an individual with a permanent disability living in the same household to the extent that the performance of juror service would cause a substantial risk of injury to the health of the individual with a disability. Jurors who are regularly employed at a location other than their households may not be disqualified for this reason. Any person claiming this disqualification shall, if the jury commissioner requests it, submit a letter from a licensed physician, licensed physician assistant authorized under section 12-240-107 (6), licensed advanced practice nurse, or authorized Christian science practitioner stating the name, address, and age of the individual with a disability, the nature of care provided by the prospective juror, and an opinion that the performance of juror service would cause a substantial risk of injury to the individual with a disability.
   5. Residence outside of the county with no intention of returning to the county at any time during the succeeding twelve months;
   6. Selection and service as an impaneled trial or grand juror in any municipal, tribal, military, state, or federal court within the preceding twelve months or being scheduled for juror service within the next twelve months. Any person claiming this disqualification must submit a letter or other formal acknowledgment from the appropriate authority verifying his or her prior or pending juror service.
   7. Appearance as a prospective juror in state court in accordance with the provisions of section 13-71-120 within the current calendar year. Any person claiming this disqualification shall submit a letter or other formal acknowledgment from the appropriate authority verifying such prior juror appearance. This exemption, however, does not apply in emergency circumstances as provided for in section 13-71-112.
   8. (Deleted by amendment,L. 2000, p. 32, § 2, effective August 2, 2000.)

3. A prospective grand juror shall be disqualified if he or she has previously been convicted of a felony in this state, any other state, the United States, or any territory under the jurisdiction of the United States.

History. Source: L. 89: Entire article R&RE, p. 766, § 1, effective January 1, 1990. L. 98: (2)(g) and (2)(h) added, p. 464, § 2, effective January 1, 1999. L. 2000: (2)(f), (2)(g), and (2)(h) amended, p. 32, § 2, effective August 2. L. 2002: (3) added, p. 761, § 12, effective July 1. L. 2004: (2)(f) amended, p. 277, § 2, effective August 4. L. 2008: (2)(c) and (2)(d) amended, p. 124, § 4, effective January 1, 2009. L. 2011: (2)(f) and (2)(g) amended,(HB 11-1153), ch. 70, p. 189, § 2, effective August 10. L. 2014: (2)(d) amended,(SB 14-118), ch. 250, p. 984, § 17, effective August 6. L. 2016: (2)(c) and (2)(d) amended,(SB 16-158), ch. 204, p. 724, § 10, effective August 10. L. 2019: (2)(c) and (2)(d) amended,(HB 19-1172), ch. 136, p. 1667, § 75, effective October 1.

This section is similar to former § 13-71-109 as it existed prior to 1989.

For the legislative declaration in SB 16-158, see section 1 of chapter 204, Session Laws of Colorado 2016.

Law reviews. For article, “Judicial Restrictions on Voir Dire: Have We Gone Too Far?”, see 97 Denv. L. Rev. 327 (2020).

The U.S. Constitution does not forbid states to prescribe relevant qualifications for their jurors. The states remain free to confine the selection to citizens, to persons meeting specified qualifications of age and educational attainment, and to those possessing good intelligence, sound judgment, and fair character. People v. Lee, 93 P.3d 544 (Colo. App. 2003).

The fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution and the equal protection clause do not apply to peremptory challenges to persons with disabilities. The fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution and the equal protection clause prohibit the use of peremptory challenges to discriminate against potential jurors based on race or gender. However, excluding jurors on the basis of a physical disability, even if it is assumed such physical disability is within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act, is not prohibited. Donelson v. Fritz, 70 P.3d 539 (Colo. App. 2002).

Section applicable to municipal courts of record. The statutory disqualifications for jury service in this section should be applied since there are no other references in the statutes to jury qualifications or disqualifications. City of Aurora v. Rhodes, 689 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1984).

With respect to the requirement that the juror be a “resident of the county”, a juror summoned to a municipal court qualifies as long as he resides in that part of the county located within the territorial limits of the municipality. City of Aurora v. Rhodes, 689 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1984).

Trial court has discretion concerning a prospective juror's ability to render satisfactory jury service when questions of the juror's ability to serve are raised because of a physical disability, and absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court's decision will not be disturbed on appeal. State v. Janes, 942 P.2d 1331 (Colo. App. 1997).

Failure of juror to meet qualification is not absolute prohibition. The failure of a prospective juror to meet a qualification for jury service operates as a basis of a challenge for cause rather than as an absolute prohibition to service. Accordingly, that challenge is waived if counsel does not use reasonable diligence on voir dire to determine if a challenge for cause exists. People v. Crespin, 635 P.2d 918 (Colo. App. 1981).

Failure of prospective juror to meet a qualification for jury service operates as a basis of a challenge for cause rather than as an absolute prohibition to service. People v. Orozco, 49 P.3d 1212 (Colo. App. 2002).

Inability to understand English grounds for disqualification. If a juror is, in fact, unable to read, speak, and understand the English language, then she will be disqualified by this section. However, whether the juror was so impaired is a fact question for the trial court. People v. Rodriquez, 638 P.2d 802 (Colo. App. 1981); People v. Duncan, 33 P.3d 1180 (Colo. App. 2001); People v. Lee, 93 P.3d 544 (Colo. App. 2003).

Findings on juror's ability to understand English binding on appeal. Where the trial court finds that a juror is able to understand, speak and read the English language adequately and where such findings are not refuted in the record, they are binding on appeal. People v. Rodriquez, 638 P.2d 802 (Colo. App. 1981); People v. Duncan, 33 P.3d 1180 (Colo. App. 2001).

Trial court abused its discretion by requiring a qualification to be satisfied by reliance upon the abilities of other jurors. Requiring one juror to depend on other jurors in order to understand the proceedings diminishes the role of the dependent juror and undermines the defendant's right to have the charges decided by 12 independent jurors. People v. Orozco, 49 P.3d 1212 (Colo. App. 2002).

Presumptions regarding judge's findings. Where there is sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's findings as to the English language skills of a juror without regard to the judge's personal knowledge of the juror, it is presumed that the trial judge disregarded any incompetent evidence in making his determination. People v. Rodriquez, 638 P.2d 802 (Colo. App. 1981).

Tests for competency set forth in this section operate as basis for challenging juror for cause. People v. Lewis, 180 Colo. 423 , 506 P.2d 125 (1973).

Defendant waives objection to juror when he has knowledge but does not challenge. Where defense counsel does not on voir dire ask questions dealing with previous criminal record of jurors and defendant possesses information of juror's felony record before jury renders verdict, but does not move for new trial until after guilty verdict, defendant waives objections to competency of juror. People v. Lewis, 180 Colo. 423 , 506 P.2d 125 (1973).

Knowing that a juror was in the Air Force, counsel should, at the very least, have taken the opportunity on voir dire to inquire further into why he considered himself a resident. His failure to exercise this opportunity constitutes a waiver of the residency requirement. People v. Crespin, 635 P.2d 918 (Colo. App. 1981).

Statute no longer disqualifies convicted felons whose voting rights have not been restored from serving on a jury. People v. Ellis, 148 P.3d 205 (Colo. App. 2006).

Defendant had no standing to assert rights of excluded juror under federal Americans with Disabilities Act where juror herself had asked to be excused due to physical disability. State v. Janes, 942 P.2d 1331 (Colo. App. 1997).

Juror opposed to capital punishment may be excluded. It is not error to exclude from the jury those persons who state that they would not be able to consider and impose the death penalty under any circumstances because of religious, ethical, or moral scruples against the death penalty. People v. Craig, 179 Colo. 115 , 498 P.2d 942, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1077, 93 S. Ct. 690, 34 L. Ed. 2d 666 (1972).

Juror's religious reservation on judging another cannot be a ground for challenge under C.R.C.P. 47 Action Realty v. Brethouwer, 633 P.2d 522 (Colo. App. 1981).

A person is domiciled in a given county if the home or place in which his or her habitation is fixed and to which he or she has the present intention of returning after a departure or absence is situated there, regardless of the duration of the absence. People v. White, 242 P.3d 1121 (Colo. 2010).

Juror was qualified under this section to serve as a trial juror since juror had lived in the county more than fifty percent of the time for the preceding four years, although juror paid Ohio income tax and voted in Ohio, juror had lived in the county for four and one-half years, had his car registered in Colorado, was employed by the United States Air Force, and was awaiting relocation at the time of his jury service. People v. Williams, 827 P.2d 612 (Colo. App. 1992).