Colorado - Position of Trust

Colorado - Sexual Assault by a person in a Position of Trust

What is the name of your state? Colorado
------------------------------------------------
Anyhow, I have a question about Colorado State law. The Pueblo Chieftian newspaper has a forum with a thread that continued disagreement about law and who it pertains to and how it is interpreted.

Here's a brief overview.

http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1190874390/8

A 23 year old 3rd grade elementary school teacher and girls high school volleyball coach was arrested Tuesday for allegedly having sex several times with a 17yr old high school student and providing alcohol for other students. The student also went to her home late at night. He claims he was drunk, and stated she had been drinking, and past a little woozy. I believe there is reason to believe that he was sober when he went to her house. This all takes place in a very small town, population 500 in between 2 nowheres.

Now she's being charged with sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust and contributing to the delinquency of a minor.

Here are the definitions from Colorado's Legislative Site that I looked up.

POSITION OF TRUST - A person in a position of trust includes parents, anyone acting in the place of parents and charged with the parent's rights and duties, or anyone charged with the health, education and welfare of and supervision of a child. Crimes against children committed by one in a position of trust are taken more seriously. See Manual § 6.7 and C.R.S. § 18-3-401(3.5).

Click to expand...

SEXUAL ASSAULT ON A CHILD BY ONE IN A POSITION OF TRUST - This statute provides that anyone who knowingly subjects another, not his or her spouse, to any sexual contact, commits sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, and the actor committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the victim. See Manual § 6.7 and C.R.S. 18-3-405.3.

Click to expand...

SEXUAL ASSAULT - Knowingly inflicting sexual intrusion or penetration on a victim by causing the victim to submit by means of sufficient consequence reasonably calculated to cause submission against the victim's will; or when knowing that the victim is incapable of appraising what the perpetrator is doing; or when the victim is less than 15 and the person is at least 4 years older than the victim and is not the spouse of the victim; or in a variety of other specific circumstances. Sexual assault ranges from a serious felony down to a misdemeanor depending on various factors. See Manual § 6.7 and C.R.S. 18-3-402.

Click to expand...

Somewhere in the statutes that anyone 15 yrs of age or younger, And person under the age of 18, but above 15 and the Actor is more than 10 yrs older than the victim, they would also be charged with sexual assault of a minor/child. (aka Statutory Rape)

In the case of People vs. Johnson where the People wanted to apply "by a person in a position of trust" to a drivers ed teacher, which was thrown out at trial, and that decision was upheld in the court of appeals. Supreme Court of Colorado (11th district I believe) better defined the "Position of Trust" laws stated above in July of this year.

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?OpinionID=6229&CourtID=1

the plain language of the position of trust statute requires that two questions be asked regarding the relationship between the actor and the victim:

1. Was the actor a parent, acting in the place of a parent, or charged with certain enumerated responsibilites for the care, education, welfare, or supervision of a child, for any period of time, not matter how brief.
2. Did the actor commit an unlawful during that period of entrustment?

The statute is violated only if both criteria are met.

Click to expand...

In this case, a driving instructor 2 months after being a 15 yr old girls driving instructor, had sex. Since the time of the Drivers Ed class (he drove with her 3 of 5 times) they exchanged numbers, and had talked several times over the couple of months leading up to the sexual relationship in question. The following statement from the Apeals court references the above list.

Accordingly, we conclude that a person cannot be charged with sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust unless the unlawful act occurred while the person was either: (1) a parent or acting in the place of a parent and charged with any of a parent’s rights, duties, or responsibilities concerning the child; or (2) charged with any duty or responsibility for the health, education, welfare, or supervision of the child

The arguement presented thus far is that because she is a teacher, she is always in a position of trust with any student under the age of 18. This would lead me to believe that all teachers are always in a continuing "Position of Trust" over anyone under the age of 18. And being in the presence of such people in that age classification, would ultimately be responsible for their welfare?

Click to expand...

That doesn't seem so fair. I don't believe in this case that she used her position as a teacher to have sex with him. In issues where the person in question isn't directly charged with his well being and welfare, nor has she had any authority over him directly.

SEXUAL ASSAULT ON A CHILD BY ONE IN A POSITION OF TRUST - This statute provides that anyone who knowingly subjects another, not his or her spouse, to any sexual contact, commits sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, and the actor committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the victim. See Manual § 6.7 and C.R.S. 18-3-405.3.

Click to expand...

Does anyone know the law that will help clarify this either way? If you think I've done my homework, and are a professional enough to say I have a good arguement, please say so. Thanks.

If you'd like to read more of the forum posts, you can find them here:
http://forums.pueblochieftain.com/showthread.php?p=8120

Does this mean nobody knows the answer? I was hoping to see some thoughts on this situation. And this is in no way taken as legal advice of any way. Just a way to get a better understanding of the laws.

Thanks

Although this is a forum, we don't really do "discussions" per se. Sure, if we disagree on a point made, we will explain why, but we don't really discuss opinions over issues.

Also, your post just sounds a little too much like a school project, and we don't do homework.

Tritium said:

Does this mean nobody knows the answer? I was hoping to see some thoughts on this situation. And this is in no way taken as legal advice of any way. Just a way to get a better understanding of the laws.

Thanks

Click to expand...

**A: what class is this homework for?

Eh...this fella already posted this whole mess, and when he didn't like the (legal) answer I gave him, he accused me of "not reading," then deleted his thread and tried again.

He just wants to "win" an online discussion on a news forum. And he's wrong.

I'm not here to help him "win" an argument. And nobody has the time to go to another site to read dozens of pages of stupid online arguing by non-legals who do not grasp the subject of their own discussion.

Silverplum said:

Eh...this fella already posted this whole mess, and when he didn't like the (legal) answer I gave him, he accused me of "not reading," then deleted his thread and tried again.

He just wants to "win" an online discussion on a news forum. And he's wrong.

I'm not here to help him "win" an argument. And nobody has the time to go to another site to read dozens of pages of stupid online arguing by non-legals who do not grasp the subject of their own discussion.

Click to expand...

**A: thanks for the heads up.

Silverplum said:

Eh...this fella already posted this whole mess, and when he didn't like the (legal) answer I gave him, he accused me of "not reading," then deleted his thread and tried again.

He just wants to "win" an online discussion on a news forum. And he's wrong.

I'm not here to help him "win" an argument. And nobody has the time to go to another site to read dozens of pages of stupid online arguing by non-legals who do not grasp the subject of their own discussion.

Click to expand...

I removed that thread outside of Juvenile, and recreated here. My question to you at that time was, where would I find in Colorado state law that says Teachers are always in a position of trust no matter what school the student or teacher is from?

Your answer was "Teachers are always in a position of trust" and I can't find the data that backs this answer up. Could you point me in the right direction?

And no, this isn't a school project. This is an actual situation that has occured, and it's not so much me wanting to be right, I just want the right answer, with a reference that show without doubt.

Thanks.

HomeGuru said:

**A: thanks for the heads up.

Click to expand...

She never answered my question fully. Anyone can give an answer, but that answer does me no good unless I can see a reference of law defining teachers as always in a position of trust over all students anywhere in the world, and direct one at that, which is what meets the criteria of sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust.

I think I have done pretty good at looking and researching on my own, and now that I am stuck, I've requested an audience so that an answer might be found.

I appreciate any assistance you can provide. But ultimately, I need a reference that proves my theory right or wrong. I don't care which, as long as it's solid.

Thanks

Tritium said:

I removed that thread outside of Juvenile, and recreated here. My question to you at that time was, where would I find in Colorado state law that says Teachers are always in a position of trust no matter what school the student or teacher is from?

Your answer was "Teachers are always in a position of trust" and I can't find the data that backs this answer up. Could you point me in the right direction?

And no, this isn't a school project. This is an actual situation that has occured, and it's not so much me wanting to be right, I just want the right answer, with a reference that show without doubt.

Thanks.

Click to expand...

No, that was not my answer. But that's what happens when you delete threads and bop around as you did.

Dude, again: NO ONE is going to go research this for you -- it is not happening TO you. It's not YOUR problem. It's a news story, and an online forum of discussion you got into on your own. But you are not having the problem, it's just academic. YOU don't even LIVE in Colorado. I'm here to help people with problems.

If you want to know an exact law, google it. Geez. But the fact remains (and my original answer was): Yes, a teacher is considered "in loci parentis" in this state. At all times while on duty. In class. At camp. At recess. Everywhere, every day that the teacher is with one or more student, for any reason, including before the bell rings and the schoolday begins.

Any more than that, I'd have to research. And I will not do your homework for you.

Tritium said:

She never answered my question fully. Anyone can give an answer, but that answer does me no good unless I can see a reference of law defining teachers as always in a position of trust over all students anywhere in the world, and direct one at that, which is what meets the criteria of sexual abuse by a person in a position of trust.

I think I have done pretty good at looking and researching on my own, and now that I am stuck, I've requested an audience so that an answer might be found.

I appreciate any assistance you can provide. But ultimately, I need a reference that proves my theory right or wrong. I don't care which, as long as it's solid.

Thanks

Click to expand...

Again: GEEZ...you don't NEED anything...this is just a game to you, and I ain't playing. Maybe someone else will.

Silverplum said:

No, that was not my answer. But that's what happens when you delete threads and bop around as you did.

Dude, again: NO ONE is going to go research this for you -- it is not happening TO you. It's not YOUR problem. It's a news story, and an online forum of discussion you got into on your own. But you are not having the problem, it's just academic. YOU don't even LIVE in Colorado. I'm here to help people with problems.

If you want to know an exact law, google it. Geez. But the fact remains (and my original answer was): Yes, a teacher is considered "in loci parentis" in this state. At all times while on duty. In class. At camp. At recess. Everywhere, every day that the teacher is with one or more student, for any reason, including before the bell rings and the schoolday begins.

Any more than that, I'd have to research. And I will not do your homework for you.

Click to expand...

You know, there's a reason why sugar plums are so popular around Christmas, and you weren't invited. Add a bag of sugar, though I'm doubting there's hope for you.

...edited for content, but that doesn't mean I didn't mean what I said....

Plum, you provided a 1 line answer. The rules are not to have the same question up in 2 different places. So I deleted the one to create this one. Your assumptions are poorly placed as well as your manners and i'm guessing integrity as well. You stated the Teacher is in a Position of trust no matter what. That was all your post contained. So if you don't have anything positive to add, go divide somewhere else. Good Day.

Silverplum said:

Yes, a teacher is considered "in loci parentis" in this state. At all times while on duty. In class. At camp. At recess. Everywhere, every day that the teacher is with one or more student, for any reason, including before the bell rings and the schoolday begins.

Any more than that, I'd have to research. And I will not do your homework for you.

Click to expand...

And I don't argue that, however, is a 3rd Grade Teacher considered to be in a position of trust when she is off duty, at home by herself, having a few drinks in the comfort of her own home when some HS Seniors show up at her door? Same school district, different buildings altogether. I don't see how she could be considered a person in a position of trust under these circumstances....

Tritium said:

...I don't see how she could be considered a person in a position of trust under these circumstances....

Click to expand...

Then you don't see much.

seniorjudge said:

Then you don't see much.

Click to expand...

What I do see are people who don't know the answer to my question, and can only truly get any self gratification is by insulting the intelligence of anyone who seeks knowledge. Moral decay started with vulgar beings of humanity like yourself.

If you have something intelligent to add in response to my question, then by all means, otherwise please keep your comments to yourself. You're the only one finding them useful.

In every state I know of, sexual activity between a teacher and a student is going to be cause for discipline, and when the student is under the legal age of consent it is cause for some worse criminal charge because of that relationship.

Regardless of whether the teacher was acting as a coach at the time of the sex act and serving minors alcohol is going to be irrelevant. Even the definition YOU provided would indicate that since the teacher was in a position as a supervisor over the student(s) for even a BRIEF time is sufficient to warrant the charge.

If the volleyball season were over, and the teacher were no longer in a position of authority at the high school, then I can see an argument being made for the element of "position of trust" no longer being made. But, so long as they were in that coach-player relationship, then the position of trust would seem to be valid.

I do not think there is anyone here well-versed on CO law so you may not find the discussion you seek. However, in CA this teacher would be in big trouble ... and in most other states as well. I only assume CO is on the same level as the rest of the nation in this regard.

- Carl