The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court in this case was whether Colorado law recognized a psychotherapist-patient privilege between a guardian ad litem and a minor child with respect to a dependency and neglect proceeding. The Court held that a guardian ad litem holds a minor child's psychotherapist-patient privilege when: (1) the child is too young or otherwise incompetent to hold the privilege; (2) the child's interests are adverse to those of his or her parent(s); and (3) section 19-3-311 C.R.S. (2012) does not abrogate the privilege. In this case, the Court found that the guardian ad litem partially waived the child's privilege when she disseminated a letter from the child's therapist to the juvenile court and to all parties. The Court remanded the case to the juvenile court for a determination of the scope of that waiver. View "L.A.N. et al. v. L.M.B." on Justia Law

In 2005, the Town of Minturn filed an application for a change of water rights. In 2007, the Town made a new application for water rights, the approval of a plan for augmentation, and conditional appropriative rights of exchange. Over thirty parties filed Statements of Opposition. After negotiations between the Town and its opposers, in 2010 the water court granted Minturn's applications and entered stipulated decrees. After the court's order, Minturn realized that the consumptive use numbers that it relied upon to calculate its monthly maximum limitations for diversion did not reflect actual monthly useage data. Minturn conferred with all of its opposers regarding its intention to correct the water court's decrees in order to conform with the newly discovered data. Each opposer agreed with the proposed corrections save one, J. Tucker, Trustee, who opposed the corrections on the ground that the parties' earlier stipulations precluded the water court from making the requested changes. The water court ultimately granted Minturn's request to correct the substantive errors, and J. Tucker appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court upheld the corrected findings of fact, conclusions of law, judgment and decrees of the water court. View "The Town of Minturn v. J. Tucker, Trustee" on Justia Law

The Colorado Supreme Court court ordered a new trial for a man who sued after he was hit by a car that skidded across an icy patch in the road near Telluride in 2004. The jury ruled in favor of Michael Johnson, who skidded into a car driven by Richard Bedor. Bedor was injured and filed a negligence lawsuit. The Supreme Court concluded jurors may have been confused after they were told a person confronted by a sudden emergency could be expected to respond normally. The Court abolished the "sudden emergency" doctrine entirely, saying the potential to mislead a jury outweighed the benefits. View "Bedor v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant Jason LaRosa confessed to his wife, mother, pastor, a police dispatcher and an investigating police officer that he had sexually assaulted his two year old daughter. He was charged with multiple crimes, and a jury convicted him on all charges. On appeal, an appellate panel reversed Defendant's convictions under the corpus delicti rule, reasoning that the prosecution had presented only opportunity evidence (other than the confessions) establishing that Defendant had an opportunity to commit crime, but not that the crimes in fact, occurred. The State appealed that decision. The issue before the Supreme Court required the Court to decide whether to abandon the judicially created "corroboration requirement," the corpus delicti rule, and all of the attendant precedent. After review the Court decided to abandon the corpus delicti rule because "sound reasons exist[ed] for doing so." In its place, the Court articulated "the trustworthiness standard," requiring the prosecution to present evidence that proves a confession is trustworthy or reliable. The Court affirmed the appellate court's decision to reverse Defendant's convictions because having consistently applied the corpus delicti rule as substantive law for over one hundred years, Defendant did not have fair warning of the Court's decision to abandon it. Therefore the Court was constitutionally prohibited from applying the new trustworthiness standard in this case. View "Colorado v. LaRosa" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in these consolidated cases concerned the actions of the title setting board (Title Board) in setting the titles and ballot titles and submission clauses (or titles) in two groups of initiatives. In case 12SA117, Petitioner Philip Hayes challenged the Title Board's title setting for Initiatives 2011-2012, Numbers 67, 68 and 69. Respondents David Ottke and John Slota were the designated representatives for those proposed initiatives. If adopted, the initiatives would alter how the General Assembly amended or repealed citizen-initiated statutes. In Case 12SA130, Petitioners Barbara Walker and Don Childears challenged the Title Board's title setting for Initiative 201-2012 Number 94 and 95. Respondents Earl Staelin and Robert Bows were the designated representatives. If adopted, Initiative 94 would have amended the Colorado constitution to allow political subdivisions to establish and operate banks; Initiative 95 would have allowed the State to open and operate its own bank. The common threshold question before the Supreme Court in this appeal was whether the Title Board had authority to act on motions for rehearing to address challenges to the titles previously set, where fewer than both of the designated representatives of the initiative's proponents appeared at the rehearing. Finding no statutory authority that conferred such authority to the Title Board, the Supreme Court reversed the actions of the Title Board and returned the measures to the Title Board for further proceedings. View "Hayes v. Ottke" on Justia Law

Defendant Walter Tate appealed a district court order that reversed a suppression of evidence order. In a prosecution of Defendant for Driving Under the Influence, the trial court found that he had been stopped without reasonable articulable suspicion the moment a patrol car parked behind him, hemming in his car, even though he was asleep and unaware of the officer at the time. On interlocutory appeal by the State, the district court concluded that the earliest moment at which the defendant could have been seized occurred when he awoke and became aware of his circumstances, and by that point in time the officer had acquired at least reasonable suspicion to justify a stop. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that a person cannot be seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, even if his freedom of movement is actually restricted, without perceiving a show of authority as directed at him or his car. The Court affirmed the district court and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Tate v. Colorado" on Justia Law

In this appeal, Petitioner Yanick Kazadi, a legal permanent resident born in the Congo, sought post-conviction review of his felony plea leading to a deferred judgment, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel for counsel's failure to notify him of possible deportation consequences for pleading guilty to obtain a deferred judgment and sentence. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court, concluding Petitioner could not seek review of his deferred judgment and sentence under Crim. P. 35(c) while in the deferred judgment period because, in a deferred judgment situation, there has not been a judgment of conviction that makes Crim. P. 35(c) review available. View "Kazadi v. Colorado" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was a trial court's order striking the testimony of plaintiff's rebuttal expert witness, and portions of two of plaintiff's previously disclosed expert witnesses. The underlying case centered on a medical malpractice claim brought by the parents of a minor child against a hospital, its management and the doctor that delivered the child. The minor was allegedly injured at birth after his umbilical cord wrapped around his neck, depriving his brain of oxygen. The parties disputed the cause of the child's injuries: Plaintiffs argued the child was injured by preventable intrapartum events (namely Defendants' alleged negligence); defendants argued the injuries occurred days, or possibly weeks prior to birth. Upon review of the matter, the Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded plaintiff's expert's rebuttal testimony because her testimony properly refuted a central theory of the defendants' case. The trial court also abused its discretion when it excluded the disclosed experts' testimony because the late disclosure of their testimony did not harm the defendants, as required for sanctions under Rule 37. Accordingly, the Court made the rule absolute and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "In re Warden v. Exempla" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case came from the court of appeals' unpublished decision in "Bacheller v. General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC," and centered on the determination of the applicability of "Protect Our Mountain Environment, Inc. v. District Court," (677 P.2d 1361 (Colo. 1984) ("POME")) to this case and the propriety of the trial court's decision to a treble and exemplary damages award. Bacheller sued General Steel, Discount Steel, and those companies' presidents for abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and civil conspiracy, based on their filing an arbitration complaint against him. The court of appeals held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to include additional elements reflecting POME's heightened standard in the jury instruction for Bacheller's malicious prosecution claims. The court of appeals also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by trebling an exemplary damages award against General Steel and Discount Steel. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court: "POME does not apply where, as here, the underlying alleged petitioning activity was the filing of an arbitration complaint that led to a purely private dispute." View "General Steel Domestic Sales, LLC v. Bacheller" on Justia Law

This adverse possession dispute between neighbors was appealed to the Supreme Court after a remand. The case below concerned legal interests in water and easement rights for three ditches diverting water from the Huerfano River. After conducting additional evidentiary proceedings as directed in the Court's first decision in this case, the water court found that Defendant Theodore Gomez had adversely possessed Plaintiff Ralph Archuleta's deeded legal interests in the Archuleta Ditch and Manzanares Ditch No. 1, but it also found that Gomez had not adversely possessed Archuleta's deeded legal interest in Manzanares Ditch No. 2. The water court ordered payment of costs in favor of Gomez but denied Gomez's request for a partial award of attorney fees. The water court enjoined Gomez from interfering with Archuleta's interest in Manzanares Ditch No. 2, and, in an order entered after the time for amending the water court's judgment had run, the water court provided additional details for the injunction, ordering Gomez to reconstruct Manzanares Ditch No. 2 across the northern part of Gomez’s lower parcel to Archuleta's property. Upon review of the case from remand, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the water court in part, concluding that Gomez adversely possessed Archuleta's legal interests in the Archuleta Ditch and Manzanares Ditch No. 1. The Court reversed the water court's judgment in part, ordering it to enter an injunction for reconstruction of Manzanares Ditch No. 2 and an easement across the northern part of Gomez's lower parcel to Archuleta’s adjoining parcel, so that Archuleta will receive the flow of water his legal interest in this ditch entitles him to divert. View "Archuleta v. Gomez" on Justia Law