The issue presented in these cases was whether a trial court could bifurcate the elements of felony DUI during a jury trial. Specifically, the Court addressed whether a jury trial for felony DUI could be conducted piecemeal, with the element of prior convictions tried separately, only after the jury returns a guilty “verdict” on the other elements. Citing Colorado v. Fullerton, 525 P.2d 1166 (Colo. 1974), the Supreme Court held that a trial court could not bifurcate the elements of the offense of felony DUI (or of any offense) during a jury trial. View "Colorado v. Kembel" on Justia Law

The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether: (1) an objection to an allegedly sleeping juror was preserved when the parties note that the juror was sleeping but requested no action from the court; (2) there was a distinction between the waiver of the right to a jury trial and the waiver of the right to a jury of twelve, which could possibly implicate whether counsel could waive the number of jurors on behalf of her client; and (3) the right to a jury of twelve was waived when counsel notes that a juror was asleep but did not object or request action from the court. The Supreme Court found defendant Elliott Forgette was tried by a jury of twelve, and this case did not implicate the second and third issues on which the Court granted certiorari, and it therefore did not decide those questions. The Court concluded, however, that defense counsel does not properly preserve an objection to an allegedly sleeping juror merely by noting that a juror was asleep without objecting or otherwise requesting any action from the court: "when counsel is aware of all of the pertinent facts and does not preserve an objection to an allegedly sleeping juror, that objection is waived, thereby precluding appellate review." View "Elliott v. Colorado" on Justia Law

G.L.A. (“Mother”) brought L.S., who was one year old at the time, to the hospital for medical treatment. Hospital staff conducted a skeletal survey, which revealed that L.S. had a broken tibia; two additional fractures that were healing; severe bruising and swelling to his groin; and significant bruising on his back, face, and genitals. The hospital sent a referral to the Arapahoe County Department of Human Services, and the state filed a petition for dependent or neglected children in district court, alleging that Mother had physically abused L.S. The district court adjudicated L.S. dependent or neglected. About a month later, the court found that an appropriate treatment plan couldn’t be devised for Mother based on L.S.’s serious bodily injury(“SBI”), and Mother appealed. The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on whether the State satisfies its burden of proving that an appropriate treatment plan can’t be devised for a respondent parent in a dependency and neglect case when the State establishes by a preponderance of evidence a single incident resulting in serious bodily injury to the child. To this, the Court concluded that it did: the district court erred by imposing a clear and convincing burden of proof on the State at the dispositional hearing. Because there was no dispute L.S. sustained a serious bodily injury, the district court’s order granting Mother’s motion for directed verdict was reversed and the case remanded to the district court for further proceedings. View "In Re Colorado in the interest of L.S." on Justia Law

Patricia and Lynette McMichael (“the McMichaels”) were the co-personal representatives for the estate of Charles McMichael (“Mr. McMichael”). The McMichaels alleged Mr. McMichael sustained injuries and died after falling on at least three occasions at a rehabilitation hospital owned by Encompass. Although Mr. McMichael was a resident and Encompass was a resident of Arapahoe County, and the alleged torts occurred at Encompass’s rehabilitation hospital in Arapahoe County, the McMichaels filed their lawsuit in Boulder County. After the McMichaels filed their complaint in May 2022, Encompass failed to file a timely response. The McMichaels moved for default judgment, which the trial court granted. Thirteen days after a response to the complaint was due, Encompass filed two separate pleadings with the court: (1) its attorneys’ entry of appearance; and (2) a motion to set aside the default judgment. In its motion, Encompass argued that the McMichaels’ counsel failed to confer with Encompass’s counsel before filing the motion for default judgment. Encompass contended the McMichaels’ lawyer had been actively engaged for months in communication with its lawyer about, among other things, the proper venue for the case. The issues this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review was the trial court’s order: (1) vacating its prior default judgment against Encompass PAHS Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC d/b/a Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Littleton (“Encompass”); and (2) granting Encompass’s motion to change venue from Boulder County to Arapahoe County. To this the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by choosing to hear this matter on the merits despite Encompass’s thirteen-day delay in responding to the complaint. Further, applying its holding in a companion case, Nelson v. Encompass PAHS Rehabilitation Hospital, LLC, 2023 CO 1, __ P.3d __, the Court concluded the trial court did not err in transferring venue from the Boulder County District Court to the Arapahoe County District Court. "Because the residence of a limited liability company (“LLC”), for venue purposes, is the residence of the LLC, rather than the residences of its members, the county designated in the complaint was not the proper county, and Encompass was entitled to a change of venue as a matter of right." View "McMichael v. Encompass PAHS Rehabilitation Hospital" on Justia Law

Respondent Floyd Nelson, a resident of Arapahoe County, Colorado alleged that he sustained injuries from a fall at a rehabilitation hospital owned by Encompass PAHS Rehabilitation, LLC d/b/a Encompass Health Rehabilitation Hospital of Littleton (“Encompass”), an LLC located in Arapahoe County. Nelson sued Encompass, asserting claims for negligence; medical negligence; and negligent hiring, supervision, retention, and training. Although Nelson was a resident of Arapahoe County, the LLC was located in Arapahoe County, and the alleged torts occurred in Arapahoe County, Nelson brought the action in Boulder County District Court. Encompass argued the trial court erred in looking to the residence of Encompass’s members in determining that venue was proper in Boulder County District Court and thus denying Encompass’s motion for change of venue. Nelson, analogizing to federal diversity cases, argued that the trial court properly looked to the residences of Encompass’s members in deciding where venue lied. In addressing this issue of first impression, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that the residence of an LLC for venue purposes under C.R.C.P. 98 was controlled by the residence of the LLC, not that of its members. View "Nelson v. Encompass PAHS Rehabilitation Hospital" on Justia Law

In February 2022, Matthew D. Barrett presided over a hearing in a case captioned Colorado v. Knisley, No. 21CR1312 (Dist. Ct., Mesa Cnty.). At one point during this hearing, which concerned the return on certain subpoenas duces tecum issued by the defendant in that case, Belinda Knisley, District Attorney Daniel Rubinstein asked to approach the bench. At the bench, he informed Judge Barrett that his paralegal had alerted him to the fact that Tina Peters, who was present in the courtroom and who was a defendant in a separate case over which Judge Barrett was presiding, appeared to be recording the hearing. Rubinstein then confirmed that he had “seen the screen, and indeed it’s recording.” Though Peters denied recording the Knisley hearing, the State moved for an order directing the issuance of a citation to hold Peters in contempt for dishonesty to the court. The State referenced attached affidavits from the paralegal seated near Peters as she was allegedly recording. "Out of an abundance of caution," Judge Barrett issued an order in which he recommended the State's motion be heard by a different judicial officer because he did not witness or find on the record Peters was recording the Knisley hearing. Several months later, Peters served on Judge Barrett a subpoena to appear for a deposition in her contempt action. Judge Barrett responded by filing a motion to quash the subpoena, arguing that: (1) his testimony was unnecessary because the transcript of the February hearing demonstrated that he did not observe Peters’s alleged conduct, while other witnesses who did observe her conduct could testify to the relevant facts; and (2) any deposition would impermissibly intrude on his mental processes. The district court denied Judge Barrett's motion to quash; the Colorado Supreme Court determined Judge Barrett's testimony was not necessary to the proceeding for which it was sought, and the district court abused its discretion in compelling Judge Barrett to appear for a deposition in this case. View "In re Colorado v. Knisley" on Justia Law

At issue for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on whether the office of Mayor in the City of Thornton, Colorado constituted a separate office from that of Councilmember for purposes of article XVIII, section 11(1) of the Colorado Constitution (“section11”), which restricted individuals from serving “more than two consecutive terms in office.” This issue was of consequence to the people of Thornton because the Supreme Court's resolution of this question determined the applicable term limit for the then-current Thornton Mayor, petitioner Jan Kulmann. Based on the plain language of the Thornton City Charter and Thornton Municipal Code, the Supreme Court concluded that the Mayor and Councilmembers in Thornton serve in distinct offices. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court’s ruling declaring, as a matter of law, that the Mayor’s seat and Councilmembers’ seats were part of one elected body and constituted the same office for purposes of section 11’s term limit restrictions. View "Kulmann v. Salazar" on Justia Law

Walker Commercial, Inc. (“Walker”) filed a Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 106(a)(4) complaint seeking review of the decision of Marshall Brown, the Director of Water of the City of Aurora (“Director”), to levy a storm drain development fee against Walker’s real property. Walker filed its Rule 106(a)(4) complaint in district court thirty days after the Director’s final decision—two days past Rule 106(b)’s twenty-eight-day filing deadline. Walker contended that C.R.C.P. 6(b) allowed the district court to extend Rule 106(b)’s filing deadline upon a showing of excusable neglect. The Director disagreed, arguing that Rule 6(b) did not apply to Rule 106(b) because Rule 106(b)’s deadline established a limitation period that was jurisdictional and that must be strictly enforced. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed with the Director and concluded that Rule 6(b) does not apply to extend Rule 106(b)’s twenty-eight-day filing deadline. The Court concluded the district court properly dismissed Walker’s Rule 106(a)(4) amended complaint as untimely. Because the original complaint was untimely, the trial court also properly dismissed Walker’s additional Claim 3 raised in its amended complaint. View " Brown v. Walker Commercial" on Justia Law

Following his conviction and sentence for first degree murder, James Woo brought a civil replevin action seeking the return of certain property that was lawfully seized by the government as part of his criminal case. The trial court ruled, and the court of appeals agreed (on different grounds), that the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”) barred Woo’s claim. Woo argued on appeal that, if the CGIA precluded his replevin action, he was rendered remediless and the CGIA, as applied to him, violated his rights under the Due Process Clauses of the federal and state constitutions. Because the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that Woo had a remedy in his criminal case to recover any property lawfully seized, and because the Court further concluded that the remedy was constitutionally adequate, the CGIA’s bar of this replevin action did not violate his federal and state constitutional rights to procedural due process. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals’ judgment, but on slightly different grounds. View "Woo v. El Paso County Sheriff" on Justia Law

In a dependency and neglect case, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed whether respondent R.B.’s (“Father’s”) due process rights were violated when a juvenile court denied his request for a continuance of a parental-rights termination hearing. Although his counsel was present, technical difficulties prevented Father’s virtual attendance at the hearing. Because Father failed to show actual prejudice, the Supreme Court concluded his claim fails. Therefore, the Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, vacated its opinion, and remanded for further proceedings. View "People in interest of Minor Child E.B." on Justia Law