Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

681 P.2d 504

People v. Curtis

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided April 23, 1984

Supreme Court of Colorado · decided 1984-04-23

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““At the original trial, the defendant was not advised of his right to testify and had no knowledge of it. He was not advised that he could override the advice of his attorney not to testify. Defendant wanted to testify.” (emphasis added)”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including People v. Naranjo, People v. Mozee

“There are several reasons why a trial judge is not required to inform a defendant of his right to testify. First, a defendant’s decision as to whether or not to testify is often made as the trial unfolds. By advising a defendant of his right to testify, a court could influence the defendant to waive his right not to testify, “thus threatening the exercise of this other, converse, constitutionally explicit and more fragile right.” Second, a court could intrude upon the attorney-client relationship by advising a defendant of his right to testify. “A trial judge must take great care not to assume the functions of trial counsel.” It is primarily the responsibility of defense counsel, not the trial judge, to advise a defendant as to whether or not he should testify and to explain the tactical advantages and disadvantages of each option. If a trial judge were to advise a defendant, suei sponte, of his right to testify, such an act could frustrate a decision on the matter made by the defendant and defense counsel who are designing trial strategy. Finally, a trial judge is not required to inform a defendant of his right to testify because it is difficult for a judge to determine the appropriate time that he should advise a defendant concerning his right to testify, since “the judge cannot know that a defendant has not testified until the defense rests and such a moment is not an opportune time to engage in a discussion with defendant which might lead to a rupture with defense counsel”

quoted by 1 later decision, including State v. Reynolds

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1984-04-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 253 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably State v. Bey (1999), State v. Powell (2012)

19 federal appellate · 3 district · 226 state decisions — followed in 27 states

94019841990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

ROVIRA, Justice,

¶1dissenting:

¶2I join the Chief Justice in his conclusion that there is no fundamental constitutional right to testify, and in his disagreement with the procedure set forth in the majority opinion for advising a defendant of his right to testify.

¶3I dissent from the result in People v. Curtis. My reading of the record of the hearing in which Curtis admitted he knew he had the right to testify, but claimed he was not advised that he could “override his *520trial lawyer’s decision” convinces me, as it did the experienced trial judge who tried the case and heard the testimony on Curtis’ motion for new trial, that Curtis waived his right to testify.

¶4The trial judge, denying the motion for new trial, recognized that every defendant has a right to testify, and the choice of whether to testify or not is that of the defendant. He found that Curtis, by returning intoxicated from the lunch recess on the final day of trial, evidenced his intention not to testify.

¶5In my opinion, the same standard should be applied to Curtis as the majority opinion applies in Jones v. People.

¶6The trial court applied the correct standards, made the findings necessary to establish waiver, and there was evidence to support the findings. I would affirm the order of the trial judge denying Curtis’ motion for new trial and reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

/681/p2d/504 · .json · Public domain