Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Police officers discovered two debit cards in Garry Allen Hudson’s possession during a contact at a motel room and subsequent arrest. Each card was issued in a different person’s name, and Hudson denied knowing either individual. The detective who testified at trial was unable to determine whether the cards were active, whether Hudson knew the named individuals, or whether there was any money in the accounts. At least one of the cards had not been reported stolen in Colorado.Hudson was charged with criminal possession of two or more financial devices. At trial in the District Court, the jury convicted him of one count of criminal possession of a financial device, but did not specify which card formed the basis for conviction. The trial court sentenced Hudson to eighteen months’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals, in a divided unpublished opinion, vacated Hudson’s conviction and sentence for criminal possession of a financial device. The majority held that the prosecution was required to prove the debit card could be used to obtain a thing of value at the time Hudson possessed it and found the evidence insufficient on that point.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court held that, under sections 18-5-903(1) and 18-5-901(6), the prosecution is not required to prove that a debit card was capable of use at the time of possession to support a conviction for criminal possession of a financial device. The Court concluded that the statutory inclusion of debit cards as financial devices is sufficient and no further qualification regarding usability is required. The case was remanded to reinstate Hudson’s conviction. View "People v. Hudson" on Justia Law

The City of Lakewood, Colorado enacted a business and occupation tax on certain telecommunications providers in 1969, which initially applied only to utility companies maintaining a telephone exchange and supplying local service within the city. Following changes in state and federal law promoting competitive neutrality and prohibiting barriers to entry, the city amended its tax ordinances in 1996 and again in 2015. The 1996 amendment expanded the tax to cover all providers of basic local telecommunications service, including some cellular services, while the 2015 amendment further broadened the scope to include all cellular and wireless voice service providers. Lakewood did not seek voter approval before enacting either amendment.After Lakewood audited MetroPCS California, LLC and assessed more than $1.6 million in unpaid business and occupation taxes, MetroPCS sued in the Jefferson County District Court. The district court granted summary judgment to MetroPCS, ruling that both the 1996 and 2015 Ordinances constituted "new taxes" under Colorado's Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR), and thus required advance voter approval. The court found the ordinances expanded the tax to previously untaxed providers and services, generating revenue that was not merely incidental or de minimis. Lakewood’s arguments that the ordinances simply clarified or updated the existing tax and did not produce significant new revenue were rejected. The district court declared both ordinances void and unenforceable for lack of voter approval.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case directly. Applying de novo review, it affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Court held that both the 1996 and 2015 Ordinances imposed new taxes within the meaning of TABOR, as they expanded the tax base to include new classes of providers and services, and the resulting revenue increases were not incidental. Because Lakewood failed to obtain voter approval prior to enacting these ordinances, both were held void and unenforceable. The Court remanded the case for consideration of MetroPCS’s request for appellate fees and costs. View "MetroPCS Cal., LLC v. City of Lakewood" on Justia Law

Alexander Rudnicki suffered permanent brain damage at birth due to Dr. Peter Bianco’s negligent use of a vacuum extractor, resulting in lifelong medical needs and disabilities. Nine years after the injury, Rudnicki’s parents filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Bianco on his behalf. Their individual claims were dismissed as time-barred, but the claim for Alexander proceeded. A jury found Bianco liable and awarded $4 million in damages. The trial court found good cause to exceed Colorado’s Health Care Availability Act ("HCAA") $1 million damages cap, citing the unfairness of limiting recovery given Rudnicki’s extensive care requirements. The court reduced the award by $391,000, excluding pre-majority medical expenses based on then-existing precedent. On appeal, this reduction was reversed by the Colorado Supreme Court, which reinstated the $391,000 in damages.After remand, the trial court reinstated the previously excluded damages and awarded prejudgment interest, including $319,120 in prefiling interest, resulting in a total judgment of about $1,357,000. The court maintained its finding of good cause and awarded the full amount, holding that the statutory cap did not limit the inclusion of prejudgment interest. Bianco appealed, arguing that prefiling interest could only be awarded up to $1 million, even if the good cause exception applied. The Colorado Court of Appeals disagreed, interpreting the HCAA to treat prefiling interest as part of economic damages, subject to the cap and the good cause exception.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the statutory language and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It held that prefiling interest accruing on economic damages is part of the economic damages award and thus falls within the good cause exception to the HCAA’s $1 million cap. The Court clarified that prefiling interest is not a separate category of damages and overruled conflicting precedent. View "Bianco v. Rudnicki" on Justia Law

Law enforcement officers from a drug task force conducted several undercover drug transactions with a defendant, exchanging cash (“buy money”) for controlled substances over the course of nearly a year. After the defendant’s eventual arrest, officers were unable to recover any of the buy money used in these operations. The defendant was charged in multiple cases and ultimately pleaded guilty to two counts of distribution of a controlled substance. The district court sentenced him to prison and, following a restitution hearing, ordered him to pay $1,640 in restitution to the drug task force for the unrecovered buy money.On appeal, a division of the Colorado Court of Appeals vacated the restitution order. The appellate court reasoned that the buy money was not “money advanced by law enforcement agencies” within the meaning of Colorado’s restitution statute, since the agency was not a statutory “victim” and did not suffer a pecuniary loss in the relevant sense. The court also found that the buy money did not qualify as “extraordinary direct public investigative costs,” because such expenditures are routine, budgeted expenses for law enforcement, not unusual or irregular costs. The division explicitly declined to follow a prior decision, People v. Juanda, which had permitted restitution for buy money under similar circumstances.The Supreme Court of Colorado granted certiorari to resolve whether law enforcement is entitled to restitution for unrecovered buy money under the relevant statute. The court held that buy money used in undercover drug transactions is neither “money advanced by law enforcement agencies” nor “extraordinary direct public investigative costs” as defined by statute. Therefore, law enforcement agencies cannot recover buy money as restitution from defendants in these circumstances. The judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals vacating the district court’s restitution order was affirmed. View "People v. Hollis" on Justia Law

Samuel Perez filed a lawsuit in 2022 against By the Rockies, LLC, alleging that during his employment in 2016 and 2017, he and other employees were denied required meal and rest breaks, in violation of Colorado’s Minimum Wage Act. Perez sought recovery for unpaid wages based on these alleged violations. By the Rockies moved to dismiss the claim as untimely, arguing that the applicable statute of limitations was two years, as set forth in the Colorado Wage Claim Act, while Perez contended that the general six-year limitations period for actions to recover a liquidated debt should apply, since the Minimum Wage Act itself does not specify a limitations period.The District Court for Larimer County agreed with By the Rockies and dismissed Perez’s complaint, applying the Wage Claim Act’s two-year statute of limitations. Perez appealed, and a divided panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal. The majority held that the six-year limitations period in section 13-80-103.5(1)(a) applied, reasoning that the Wage Claim Act’s limitations period was restricted to claims brought specifically under that Act, not under the Minimum Wage Act. The dissent argued that the Wage Claim Act’s limitations period was more specific and appropriate in light of the overall statutory scheme governing wage claims in Colorado.The Supreme Court of Colorado granted certiorari to resolve which limitations period applies to claims under the Minimum Wage Act. The Court held that the two-year limitations period set forth in the Wage Claim Act governs such claims, reasoning that both Acts are part of a comprehensive statutory scheme addressing unpaid wages and that the Wage Claim Act is more specific to wage disputes than the general limitations provision. The Supreme Court of Colorado reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the district court’s order of dismissal. View "By the Rockies, LLC v. Perez" on Justia Law

Several newly elected members joined a school district’s board of education in late 2021. Their priority was to make Merit Academy a charter school within the district. After previous unsuccessful attempts, the board moved forward with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to streamline the process. The agenda for the January 26, 2022, meeting where the MOU was discussed did not clearly indicate this topic, being labeled only as "BOARD HOUSEKEEPING." The board approved the MOU at this meeting. Subsequent meetings in February and April further addressed the MOU, with the April meeting involving a detailed discussion and statements from each board member.After the January meeting, a community member, Erin O’Connell, filed suit alleging a violation of Colorado’s Open Meetings Law (COML) due to insufficient public notice. The District Court initially granted an injunction requiring the board to provide clearer agendas. Later, upon summary judgment, the District Court found that the board cured the COML violation at the April meeting, which was properly noticed and involved substantive reconsideration. The court held O’Connell was not a prevailing party and denied her request for attorney fees.On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed most of the district court’s rulings. It upheld the “cure doctrine,” allowing public bodies to remedy prior open meetings violations by holding a subsequent compliant meeting, provided it is not a mere “rubber stamp.” The Court of Appeals also found that the doctrine does not distinguish between intentional and unintentional violations and that the April meeting cured the earlier violation. It denied O’Connell costs and attorney fees.The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed that the cure doctrine is consistent with the COML and longstanding precedent, and applies regardless of the violation’s intent. However, it reversed regarding attorney fees, holding that because O’Connell proved a violation that was not cured until after suit was filed, she is the prevailing party and entitled to costs and reasonable attorney fees. The case was remanded for determination and award of such fees. View "O'Connell v. Woodland Park Sch. Dist." on Justia Law

Andrew Burgess Gregg was charged with aggravated robbery, attempt to influence a public servant, false reporting, and four habitual criminal counts in Mesa County, Colorado. After a jury convicted him of the substantive offenses, the trial court discharged the jury and scheduled a hearing to determine his habitual criminal status under Colorado’s prior sentencing statute, which required the judge to make such findings. Before that hearing, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Erlinger v. United States, holding that facts increasing a sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act—specifically, whether prior convictions arose from separate criminal episodes—must be determined by a jury, not solely by a judge.Gregg moved to dismiss the habitual criminal counts, arguing that Erlinger rendered Colorado’s statute unconstitutional and that empaneling a new jury would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The People opposed, asserting that jeopardy had not yet attached to the habitual counts and that a second jury could properly decide the matter. The Mesa County District Court granted Gregg’s motion, finding it could not empanel a new jury for the habitual counts because jeopardy had attached.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case in an original proceeding. The court held that Colorado’s former habitual criminal sentencing statute is not facially unconstitutional and can be constitutionally applied by allowing a jury to determine whether prior convictions arose out of separate and distinct episodes, with a judge then reviewing for sufficiency of the evidence. The court also held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar empaneling a second jury to decide habitual criminal counts when the first jury was discharged after adjudicating only the substantive offenses. The Supreme Court made the order to show cause absolute and reinstated Gregg’s habitual criminal charges for jury assessment. View "People v. Gregg" on Justia Law

A teenager, S.G.H., was accused of using generative artificial intelligence to create explicit composite images of three underage female classmates by digitally blending their actual faces and clothed bodies with computer-generated images of naked intimate body parts. These manipulated images were discovered on S.G.H.’s school email account during a police investigation prompted by an automated alert regarding inappropriate content. The images made it appear as though the classmates were nude, but the explicit portions were entirely computer-generated and not derived from actual photographs of the victims.In the Morgan County District Court, the People of the State of Colorado filed a delinquency petition charging S.G.H. with six counts of sexual exploitation of a child under section 18-6-403(3)(b) and (3)(b.5), C.R.S. (2024). S.G.H. moved to dismiss, arguing that the images did not constitute “sexually exploitative material” under the law then in effect, since they did not depict actual naked children and the explicit body parts were computer-generated. The District Court denied the motion, interpreting the statute as encompassing digitally manipulated images bearing a child’s actual features combined with simulated intimate parts, and found probable cause for all charges.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case under its original jurisdiction. The Court held that, as of December 2023, the statutory definition of “sexually exploitative material” did not cover images created or altered using generative AI to fabricate explicit content. The Court found that recent legislative amendments expanding the definition to include such computer-generated images represented a change, not a clarification, of the law. Concluding that the District Court erred in finding probable cause, the Supreme Court made absolute its order to show cause and remanded with instructions to dismiss all charges against S.G.H. View "People ex rel. S.G.H." on Justia Law

Chance and Erin Gresser sued Banner Health on behalf of their minor daughter, C.G., alleging medical malpractice during labor, delivery, and postpartum care that resulted in severe, permanent injuries to C.G., including neurological damage and cerebral palsy. The jury found Banner Health negligent and awarded the Gressers over $27 million in economic damages, including past and future medical expenses and lost wages. Given Colorado’s Health Care Availability Act (HCAA) generally imposes a $1 million cap on such damages, the Gressers moved to exceed the cap based on good cause and unfairness, while Banner Health sought to reduce the award to the statutory limit.The Weld County District Court determined that imposing the statutory cap would be unfair under the circumstances and found good cause to exceed it. The court concluded its role was limited to a binary choice: either impose the cap or allow the full jury award, subject only to challenges for insufficient evidence or excessive damages. After finding the evidence supported the jury’s award and that the amount was not manifestly excessive or based on improper motives, the court entered judgment for the full amount, nearly $40 million with interest. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, though it reasoned the trial court retained some discretion in determining damages after finding good cause to exceed the cap.On certiorari review, the Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. The court held that, once a trial court finds good cause and unfairness under section 13-64-302(1)(b) of the HCAA to exceed the damages cap, the amount of damages is governed by common law. The jury retains authority to determine the amount of damages, subject only to remittitur and sufficiency-of-evidence review by the court. The Supreme Court thus affirmed the full judgment awarded to the Gressers. View "Health v. Gresser" on Justia Law

After a ranch was divided into two parcels, the owners of each parcel continued to share irrigation ditches and granted each other easements for water conveyance. In recent years, cooperation between the parties deteriorated, leading to disputes over water usage. The plaintiffs, who own one parcel, alleged that the defendant, owner of the other parcel, had diverted more water than entitled, causing excess runoff and flooding on their land. The plaintiffs claimed violations of Colorado statutes relating to waste of water, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, and asserted trespass and nuisance claims. The parties also disputed the scope of the plaintiffs' easement in one of the ditches.The District Court for Water Division 5 found in favor of the plaintiffs on their statutory, trespass, and nuisance claims, concluding that the defendant had diverted excess water, wasted water in violation of statutes, and caused flooding. The court awarded nominal damages, attorney fees under section 37-84-125, and issued an injunction restricting the defendant's ability to divert water in excess of its decreed rights. The court also recognized plaintiffs' easement rights but declined to specify the extent of the easement in the Lower Gaskill Ditch, since that issue was not properly raised at trial.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Colorado held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a claim for a declaration of waste, that section 37-84-108 does not create a private right of action, and that sections 37-84-124 and -125 do not apply to injuries from excess irrigation runoff or flooding. The court ruled the water court lacked ancillary jurisdiction over the related trespass and nuisance claims and that the injunction must be vacated. The court affirmed the water court's refusal to address the scope of the Lower Gaskill Ditch easement, reversed the judgment on all waste, flooding, trespass, nuisance, and related injunctive claims, and remanded with instructions to dismiss those claims. View "Byers Peak Properties v. Byers Peak Land & Cattle, LLC" on Justia Law