Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves Glen Gary Montoya, who was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI). After initially agreeing to a blood test, Montoya later refused. However, after the nurse left, he changed his mind and requested to take the test. The test was not conducted. At trial, the prosecution sought to use Montoya’s refusal as evidence of consciousness of guilt. Montoya was found guilty of DUI and careless driving.The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that if a criminal court determines that a driver refused testing, that determination must be based on the law of refusal that has developed in the administrative, license-revocation context. The court also concluded that if the prosecutor seeks to use as evidence a defendant’s refusal of a chemical test, but the defendant disputes refusal, the entire circumstances surrounding the defendant’s test-taking must be submitted for the jury’s consideration. The court reversed Montoya’s DUI conviction and remanded for a new trial.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado disagreed with the lower court's interpretation of the law of refusal. The Supreme Court held that criminal DUI trials are governed by the same evidentiary rules as any other criminal trial. Therefore, criminal courts are not bound by the law of refusal that governs administrative, license-revocation hearings. The court also concluded that the district court erred by admitting evidence of Montoya's refusal to submit to testing and excluding evidence of his subsequent request for testing. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the lower court, remanding the case for a new trial. View "People v. Montoya" on Justia Law

In November 2015, Mark Kinslow hit Daniala Mohammadi with his car while she was riding her bicycle. Mohammadi, who was a minor at the time of the accident, sued Kinslow in December 2019, more than two years but less than three years after she turned eighteen. Kinslow moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired two years after Mohammadi’s eighteenth birthday. Mohammadi countered that the usual three-year statute of limitations for motor vehicle accidents had not started to run until her eighteenth birthday.The trial court granted Kinslow’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Mohammadi was required to bring her claim either within three years of the incident, or within two years after she turned eighteen. The court of appeals reversed this decision, agreeing with Mohammadi and concluding that it was bound by decisions of the Supreme Court of Colorado providing that statutes of limitations are “tolled” for claims by a minor plaintiff until the minor turns eighteen.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado reversed the court of appeals' decision. The court concluded that the plain language of section 13-81-103(1)(c), C.R.S. (2023), gives a plaintiff who turns eighteen within the three-year limitation period for a motor vehicle accident a statute of limitations that is the longer of (1) the full three years normally accorded an accident victim, or (2) two years from their eighteenth birthday. For Mohammadi, this meant that she was required to bring her claim by January 1, 2019—two years after she turned eighteen. Because her suit was filed after that date, it was untimely. The court remanded the case with instructions to dismiss. View "Kinslow v. Mohammadi" on Justia Law

Brandon Mason Bohler was charged with first-degree murder after stabbing his roommate to death. He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. During his arrest, Bohler made statements to the police which were later suppressed by the district court. The court ruled that Bohler was in custody for Miranda purposes when he made the statements, and thus, they should have been preceded by a Miranda warning.The People of the State of Colorado appealed the district court's decision to suppress Bohler's statements. They argued that Bohler was not in custody when he made the statements, and therefore, a Miranda warning was not required. The appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado reversed the district court's decision. The court determined that Bohler was not in custody when he made the statements. The court reasoned that a reasonable person in Bohler's position would not have believed himself to be deprived of freedom of action to the degree associated with a formal arrest. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court erred in suppressing Bohler's statements, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "People v. Brandon Bohler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado affirmed a lower court's restitution order, ruling that the defendant was the proximate cause of the victim's pecuniary loss. The defendant, Arnold Roman Martinez, had stolen a bicycle and was pursued by the bicycle's owner in a car. The car was damaged when the owner cut off Martinez, causing him to crash into the car. The district court ordered Martinez to pay over $2,000 in restitution for the damage to the car.On appeal, Martinez challenged the order, asserting that he did not proximately cause the damage to the car. The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado ruled that the standard for reviewing a district court's determination of proximate cause for criminal restitution is clear error, not the abuse-of-discretion standard used by the lower court. The Supreme Court found that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Martinez's theft was the proximate cause of the damage to the car. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the restitution order on different grounds. View "Martinez v. People" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado reviewed a case involving an insurance dispute over uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM/UIM") benefits in a specialty antique/classic-car policy. The plaintiff, Beverly Hughes, was injured while driving a vehicle owned by her employer. Hughes was insured by two automobile insurance policies: one standard policy issued by Travelers Insurance covering her regular-use vehicles and a specialty policy issued by Essentia Insurance Company covering her antique/classic cars. She sought to recover underinsured motorist benefits from both policies.The court held that a specialty antique/classic-car policy that requires an insured to have a regular-use vehicle and to insure it through a standard policy that provides UM/UIM coverage may properly limit its own UM/UIM coverage to the use of any antique/classic car covered under the specialty policy. The court reasoned that an adjunctive antique/classic-car policy, which excludes UM/UIM benefits with respect to situations involving a regular-use vehicle but works in tandem with a standard regular-use-vehicle policy that provides UM/UIM coverage, satisfies both the language of section 10-4-609, C.R.S. (2023), and the public policy goals underpinning the statute. Thus, the court concluded that the regular-use-vehicle exclusion in the UM/UIM provision of Essentia's specialty policy is valid and enforceable under Colorado law. As a result, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstated the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Essentia. View "Essentia Insurance Company, v. Hughes" on Justia Law

A high school student, identified as J.G., was required to undergo daily searches for weapons as part of a safety plan after committing firearm-related offenses. However, when J.G. returned to school for his tenth-grade year, he was not searched on the first two days. On his third day, school administrators discovered a loaded handgun in his backpack and he was arrested and charged with weapons-related offenses. J.G. moved to suppress evidence of the handgun, arguing that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights as the safety plan was no longer in effect at the time of the search. His motion was denied by the juvenile court which found that the safety plan, with its requirement for daily searches, was still in place when the handgun was found.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that a search of a student conducted on school grounds in accordance with an individualized, weapons-related safety plan is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that J.G.'s behavior did not create individualized reasonable suspicion on the day he was searched. However, the presence or absence of individualized suspicion is not the full extent of the inception prong of the reasonableness test. The court held that the search of J.G.’s backpack was reasonable at its inception because it was carried out in conformity with a formal safety plan and it was appropriately limited in its scope. The court also found that J.G. had sufficient notice of the search requirement to diminish his expectation of privacy in his backpack. View "People In re J.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Colorado examined the case of Carlos Ray Maes, who was charged with six felony counts. A magistrate presided over the preliminary hearing and found that probable cause existed for each of the eligible counts. The case was then bound over to the district court. Nearly three months later, Maes petitioned the district court for a review of the magistrate's probable-cause determination, but the district court declined, arguing that it did not have jurisdiction to review such a determination and that Maes's petition was not timely.The Supreme Court of Colorado held that a magistrate's finding of probable cause after a preliminary hearing is a "final order or judgment" under the Colorado Rules for Magistrates and is therefore reviewable by a district court. Further, the court held that the time limit for petitioning for district court review of a magistrate's final order or judgment begins when the magistrate memorializes that determination in writing. Consequently, the court concluded that Maes's petition was timely filed. The court made the rule to show cause absolute and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "People v. Maes" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado has ruled that the notice-prejudice rule applies to occurrence-based, first-party homeowners’ property insurance policies. This rule allows insurance companies to deny coverage based on late notice of a claim only if they can prove they were prejudiced by the delay. The court reached this conclusion after exploring the differences between occurrence policies and claims-made policies, asserting that applying the rule to the former was consistent with precedent. The court's decision was based on three policy considerations: the adhesive nature of insurance contracts, the public policy of compensating victims, and the unfairness of granting the insurer a windfall due to a technicality. This case involved two homeowners, Karyn Gregory and Lisa and Sylvan Runkel, who had filed claims for hail damage to their homes. The insurance companies denied their claims on the grounds that they were filed too late. The court reversed the judgments of the lower courts and remanded the cases for further proceedings, with instructions to allow the insurers an opportunity to establish prejudice from the late notice. View "Gregory v. Safeco Insurance Company of America" on Justia Law

This case involves the interpretation of a provision in the Colorado Sex Offender Lifetime Supervision Act (SOLSA) that dictates the factors parole boards must consider when deciding whether to release a convicted sex offender on parole. The Supreme Court of Colorado was asked by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether SOLSA requires, permits, or prohibits parole boards from considering maturity and rehabilitation of an offender.The case arose from the sentencing of Omar Ricardo Godinez, who was convicted of several serious offenses committed when he was fifteen years old. Godinez argued that SOLSA violated the Eighth Amendment as applied to him, claiming that the Act does not allow parole boards to consider an offender's maturity and rehabilitation. This, he contended, renders the Act unconstitutional in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Florida, which mandates that young offenders must be given "some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation."The Supreme Court of Colorado concluded that although SOLSA does not expressly require parole boards to consider an offender's maturity, it does not prevent them from doing so. Hence, SOLSA permits consideration of maturity. As for rehabilitation, the Court held that it is a necessary part of the factors the parole board is required to consider under SOLSA. Thus, the Court concluded that SOLSA requires consideration of rehabilitation. Therefore, the Court held that SOLSA permits consideration of maturity and requires consideration of rehabilitation. View "Godinez v. Williams" on Justia Law

In this case, the Supreme Court of Colorado considered a petition from GHP Horwath, P.C., Nadine Pietrowski, Bohn Aguilar, LLC, Michael G. Bohn, and Armando Y. Aguilar, asking the court to permanently enjoin Nina H. Kazazian from proceeding pro se in Colorado state courts. Over the past eleven years, Kazazian, a pro se litigant and former attorney, had initiated at least ten lawsuits and twice as many appeals, most of which were found to be duplicative, meritless, or frivolous. Her actions led to her disbarment and multiple sanctions. The court noted that while every person has the right to access Colorado courts, this right is not absolute and may be curtailed when a pro se party persistently disrupts judicial administration by filing meritless and duplicative claims. The court found that Kazazian's actions placed a strain on judicial resources and were harmful to the public interest. Therefore, the court granted the petitioners' requested relief and ordered that Kazazian be permanently enjoined from proceeding pro se in Colorado state courts. View "GHP Horwath, P.C. v. Kazazian" on Justia Law