Court Opinion

ID: 9633496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:49:28.770288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:36.464663
License: Public Domain

Judge VAN CISE *
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from Part I of the majority opinion. In my opinion, the trial court did not err in allowing the admission of the psychiatric service worker’s testimony.
Defendant’s argument that the service worker’s testimony was barred under the limited use provision of § 16-8-107(1), C.R.S. (1990 Cum.Supp.) is raised for the first time on appeal. His objection to the witness’ testimony in the trial court was based on relevancy under CRE 401 and 403 and, alternatively, the witness’ inability to recall clearly the defendant’s statements.
Having failed to object in the trial court on the grounds now asserted, defendant is deemed to have waived the objection on appeal. CRE 103; People v. Watson, 668 P.2d 965 (Colo.App.1983).
Furthermore, even if the argument had been properly raised, it is without merit. Section 16-8-107(1) bars the admission of only those communications derived from a defendant’s mental processes “during the course of a court-ordered examination.” Moreover, § 16-8-106(1) provides that the examination is to be conducted by physicians with specialty training or by psychologists.
Here, it is undisputed that the witness was neither a physician nor a psychologist. Indeed, the witness testified his duties were largely related to security. Furthermore, the record shows that defendant’s statements were not made during the course of an examination but rather during a conversation with another patient.
Since I agree with the majority’s conclusions in Parts II and III, and conclude that the polygraph reference by the prosecution was harmless, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.

 Sitting by assignment of the Chief Justice under provisions of the Colo. Const, art. VI, Sec. 5(3), and § 24-51-1105, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol. 10B).