CO Code § 13-10-112 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 10 - Municipal Courts|§ 13-10-112. Powers and Procedures

  The municipal judge of any municipal court has all judicial powers relating to the operation of his court, subject to any rules of procedure governing the operation and conduct of municipal courts promulgated by the Colorado supreme court. The presiding municipal judge of any municipal court has authority to issue local rules of procedure consistent with any rules of procedure adopted by the Colorado supreme court.    The judicial powers of any municipal judge shall include the power to enforce subpoenas issued by any board, commission, hearing officer, or other body or officer of the municipality authorized by law or ordinance to issue subpoenas.     History. Source: L. 69: P. 275, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 37-22-10 . L. 91: Entire section amended, p. 742, § 3, effective April 4.    ANNOTATION   Contempt power is implied by need to maintain order and decorum indispensable to judicial proceedings. Thrap v. People, 192 Colo. 341 , 558 P.2d 576 (1977).   Determination whether or not certain conduct constitutes contempt is within the trial court's sound discretion, and it is not reviewable on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Tipton v. City of Lakewood ex rel. People, 198 Colo. 18 , 595 P.2d 689 (1979).   It is not designed to protect judge's dignity or person. A judge's power to punish contempt committed in his presence is not designed to protect his own dignity or person, but to protect the rights of litigants and the public by ensuring that the administration of justice shall not be thwarted or obstructed. Thrap v. People, 192 Colo. 341 , 558 P.2d 576 (1977).   Contempt power must be exercised with self-restraint. Like other inherent judicial powers, the contempt power must be exercised with patience and self-restraint. Thrap v. People, 192 Colo. 341 , 558 P.2d 576 (1977).   While a court may have inherent power to perform its judicial functions effectively, the method a court chooses to use in exercising its inherent power must be one which the court has jurisdiction to utilize. City of Englewood v. Parkinson, 703 P.2d 626 (Colo. App. 1985).   Judges must be cautious to avoid overreacting when persons not familiar with court procedures, through ignorance or frustration, unintentionally cause minor commotions. Thrap v. People, 192 Colo. 341 , 558 P.2d 576 (1977).   When contempt power should be invoked. Since the contempt power is rooted in the necessity to maintain the respectful atmosphere appropriate to efficient administration of justice, it should be invoked only when the judicial process has been seriously affronted or disrupted. Only then is there a need to vindicate the dignity and authority of the court or to reestablish the respect owed to it. Thrap v. People, 192 Colo. 341 , 558 P.2d 576 (1977).   One cannot be convicted of contempt for respectfully declining to comply with an order which is beyond the court's authority. Thrap v. People, 192 Colo. 341 , 558 P.2d 576 (1977).   Invocation of contempt power to punish valid exercise of constitutional right is an abuse of discretion by the court. Tipton v. City of Lakewood ex rel. People, 198 Colo. 18 , 595 P.2d 689 (1979).   Ordering husband to reveal remarks to wife. A municipal judge had no authority, without the consent of the defendant or his wife, to order him to reveal what he had told her. Thrap v. People, 192 Colo. 341 , 558 P.2d 576 (1977).   Evidence insufficient to support contempt conviction. Thrap v. People, 192 Colo. 341 , 558 P.2d 576 (1977).   Where the record indicates that the only substantial delay or disruption in court proceedings occurred after the judge required the defendant to return to the courtroom, sought to force him to divulge his prior remarks to his wife, and had him handcuffed in open court, that disruption cannot be attributed to the defendant's conduct. Thrap v. People, 192 Colo. 341 , 558 P.2d 576 (1977).