Laserfiche WebLink
Conclusions of law such as interpretations of statutes are <br />always reviewed de novo. E.g. Colorado Dept. of Labor & <br />Employment v. Esser 30 P.3d 189, 194 (Colo. 2001). In <br />construing statutes, our primary duty is to give full effect to <br />the intent of the General Assembly. E.g. Vigil v. Franklin <br />103 P.3d 322, 327 (Colo. 2004). Accordingly, we start with the <br />plain language of the statute, e.g. In re 2000 -2001 Dist. Grand <br />in and for First Judicial Dist., 97 P.3d 921, 924 (Colo. <br />2004), because "`if courts can give effect to the ordinary <br />meaning of the words adopted by a legislative body, the statute <br />should be construed as written since it may be presumed that the <br />General Assembly meant what it clearly said, Pierson v. Black <br />Canyon Aggregates, Inc. 48 P.3d 1215,1218 -19 (Colo. 2002) <br />(quoting Resolution Trust Corp. v. Heiserman 898 P.2d 1049, <br />1054 (Colo. 1995)); see also Scoggins v. Unigard Ins. Co. 869 <br />P.2d 202, 205 (Colo. 1994) ( "`We will not judicially legislate <br />by reading a statute to accomplish something the plain language <br />does not suggest, warrant or mandate.—) (quoted in Slack v. <br />Farmers Ins. Exch. 5 P.3d 280, 284 (Colo. 2000)). <br />Additionally, "[a] statutory interpretation leading to an <br />illogical or absurd result will not be followed," Frazier v. <br />People 90 P.3d 807, 811 (Colo. 2004) (citing State v. Nieto <br />993 P.2d 493, 501 (Colo. 2000)), and we strive to construe a <br />"statute as a whole in order to give `consistent, harmonious and <br />15 <br />