Court Opinion

ID: 9781650
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 16:59:33.703078+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:49.186009
License: Public Domain

Justice COATS,
specially concurring.
I concur in the majority opinion, noting only (as I have done in the past, see Compan v. People, 121 P.3d 876, 886 (Colo.2005) (Coats, J., specially concurring)) that I understand the majority to intend, with regard to the state constitution, only that if the admissibility of non-testimonial hearsay were contingent upon the unavailability of the de-clarant, such a requirement would present no impediment to admission in this case. See maj. op. at 927, 929. Although I think it clear that we have never found the state constitution to impose an unavailability requirement beyond that of the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause, the declarant’s clear unavailability here renders such a determination unnecessary to the resolution of the case before us.