CO · rules

Crim. P. 55

Records

activein force · 2019-06-06 – presentact-effective-date

(a) Register of Actions (Criminal Docket). The clerk shall keep a record known as

the register of actions and shall enter those items set forth below. The register of actions

may be in any form or style prescribed by chief justice directive or approved by the State

Court Administrator.

A register of actions shall be prepared for each case filed. The file number of each case

shall be entered in the court case management system. All documents filed with the clerk,

all process issued and returns made thereon, all costs, appearances, orders, verdicts, and

judgments shall be noted chronologically in the register of actions. The entries shall be

brief but shall show the date and title of each document filed, order or writ issued, data

transfer submitted or received, and the substance of each order or judgment of the court

and the returns showing execution of process. The notation of an order or judgment shall

show the date the notation is made. The notation of the judgment in the register of actions

shall constitute the entry of judgment.

(b) Criminal Record. Repealed effective September 4, 1974.

keep as directed by the court, calendars of all hearings and all cases ready for trial, which

shall distinguish trials to a jury from trials to the court. Indices and calendars may be in any

form or style prescribed by chief justice directive or approved by the State Court Administrator.

(d) Files. Repealed effective June 6, 2019.

(e) Reporter’s Notes; Custody, Use, Ownership, Retention. For proceedings in

district court, the practice and procedure concerning court reporter notes and electronic or

mechanical recordings shall be as prescribed in Chief Justice Directive 05-03, Management

Plan for Court Reporting and Recording Services. For proceedings in county court, that

practice and procedure shall be as prescribed in C.R.C.P. 380.

(f) Retention and Disposition of Records. The clerk shall retain and dispose of all

court records in accordance with the Colorado Judicial Department’s records retention

manual.

History

Source: (e) amended February 14, 2019, effective immediately; (a), (c), and (f) amended and (d) repealed effective June 6, 2019. ANNOTATION Court of record has an affirmative duty to contemporaneously record all proceedings. Reconstruction of the record at a later time is not an adequate substitute for a contemporane- ous record. Jones v. District Court, 780 P.2d 526 (Colo. 1989). Bench or side-bar conferences are not to be conducted off the record unless the parties so request or so consent. Jones v. District Court, 780 P.2d 526 (Colo. 1989). But a failure to record all trial proceedings will not always result in reversible error. Trial court’s failure to record certain bench con- ferences and pretrial conference was harmless where defense counsel never objected to unre- corded proceedings, defendant cannot show how error prejudiced her, and there is sufficient information on the record to rule on appeal. People v. Pineda, 40 P.3d 60 (Colo. App. 2001). The court did not err by taking judicial notice of defendant’s probation status after determining the status from the state com- puter system. Since § 13-1-119 and this rule expressly approve of records kept and main- tained in a state computer system, the court may take judicial notice of the court records con- tained in the system. People v. Linares- Guzman, 195 P.3d 1130 (Colo. App. 2008).

Provenance

Source: content.leg.colorado.gov
Retrieved: 2026-09-15
Edition: 2026-09-15
Content hash: 939d8bd404a6c643cfe49e5e5b641056cc094f5b2c6b8fe56d6e403c4e27cbb0

View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs