Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Four juveniles conspired to rob a victim of vaping products in Colorado in 2019. During the incident, one of the juveniles, who is Black, shot and killed the victim. All four were initially charged with felony murder, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. Subsequent investigation revealed that the shooter acted alone in confronting and shooting the victim, while the other three, including two non-Black juveniles, had more limited roles and cooperated with law enforcement. The two non-Black juveniles received plea deals allowing them to be tried in juvenile court and were sentenced to two years in the Division of Youth Services, while the two Black defendants, including the shooter, were prosecuted in district court and faced substantially harsher potential sentences.The District Court for Arapahoe County denied the shooter's motion to dismiss for selective prosecution, finding that he was not similarly situated to his non-Black codefendants due to his greater culpability as the shooter. The court also found that statistical evidence provided did not establish discriminatory purpose by the prosecution. The case proceeded to trial, and a jury convicted the shooter, who was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole after forty years. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss, agreeing that the shooter was not similarly situated to the other defendants. The appellate division did not address whether the statistical evidence sufficed to show discriminatory purpose.The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It held that the defendant failed to establish a claim of selective prosecution because he did not show a discriminatory effect or purpose. Specifically, he was not similarly situated to his non-Black codefendants, and his statistical evidence did not demonstrate that similarly situated non-Black individuals were treated differently. View "Mitchell v. People" on Justia Law

Lakewood police agents followed Tien Dinh Pham after observing his vehicle leave a house in a high-crime area. They initiated a traffic stop for a lane change violation. Pham pulled into a parking lot, and the agents ordered him out of the vehicle. After a brief pat down, Pham was directed away from the car, leaving the door open. Agent Kyle Winters then deployed a drug-detection dog, which entered the vehicle and alerted to the presence of drugs. The agents searched the vehicle and found drugs, paraphernalia, and weapons. Pham was charged with multiple offenses, including possession with intent to distribute controlled substances and possession of a weapon by a previous offender.The Jefferson County District Court held a suppression hearing and ruled that the search was unconstitutional. The court found that the officers had no reason to remove Pham from his vehicle and acted improperly by leaving the door open, facilitating the dog's entry into the car. The court suppressed the evidence obtained from the search.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case. It concluded that the trial court erred in finding that removing Pham from his vehicle was improper, as officers may order a driver out of a vehicle during a lawful traffic stop for safety reasons. However, the court agreed that the dog's entry into the vehicle constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment. Since the search was conducted without probable cause, it was deemed unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the trial court's suppression order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "People v. Pham" on Justia Law

Autumn Scardina requested a cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop to celebrate her gender transition. The shop, owned by Jack Phillips, refused to make the cake, citing the message as the reason. Scardina filed a discrimination claim with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, which found probable cause of discrimination. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission took jurisdiction but later dismissed the case as part of a confidential settlement in a federal lawsuit filed by Phillips, without Scardina's participation.The district court took up Scardina's case after the Commission's dismissal and found that Phillips had violated Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), imposing a fine. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Phillips then appealed to the Supreme Court of Colorado.The Supreme Court of Colorado held that the district court should not have heard Scardina's case. The court concluded that Scardina did not exhaust her administrative remedies as required by CADA. Specifically, the court found that Scardina should have appealed the Commission's decision to close the administrative adjudication without issuing the required order. The court vacated the lower courts' decisions and dismissed the case, stating that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. View "In re Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc." on Justia Law

Rachel Ann Niemeyer was questioned by police after her husband suffered a gunshot wound to the head. During the interrogation at the police station, Niemeyer made incriminating statements. She was charged with murdering her husband and moved to suppress these statements, arguing they were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona. The trial court denied her motion, concluding she was not in custody when she made the statements. A jury convicted her of second-degree murder and other offenses.The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The majority held that a reasonable person in Niemeyer's position would not have considered herself in custody, as her freedom of action was not curtailed to the degree associated with a formal arrest. The court reasoned that the hand-bagging procedure did not convert the situation into a custodial one. However, a dissenting judge argued that the police's actions and statements indicated that Niemeyer was in custody, as they would not consider taking her to the hospital until completing unspecified tasks.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and held that Niemeyer was in custody for Miranda purposes during the interrogation. The court found that a reasonable person in her position would have believed they were deprived of their freedom of action to a degree associated with a formal arrest. The court noted that Niemeyer was alone in an interrogation room late at night, repeatedly asked to go to the hospital, and was physically restrained with zip-tied bags on her hands. The court concluded that the trial court's error in admitting her statements was not harmless and reversed the judgment of the court of appeals, remanding for further proceedings. View "Niemeyer v. People" on Justia Law

Police officers questioned Terrence Kenneth Eugene about his involvement in a road-rage incident without informing him of his Miranda rights. During the encounter, Eugene admitted to pushing the other driver but denied using a weapon. His statements were used at trial, leading to his conviction for second and third-degree assault.The trial court denied Eugene's motion to suppress his statements, finding he was not in custody for Miranda purposes. The court noted that Eugene's movement was not restricted, the officers did not use coercive tactics, and Eugene was not formally arrested. A jury subsequently convicted Eugene.On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, concluding that Eugene was in custody during the interrogation and that the trial court erred in not suppressing his statements. The appellate court found that the circumstances of the interrogation, including the officers' tone and the duration of the encounter, indicated a custodial situation.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and reversed the appellate court's decision. The court held that Eugene was not in custody for Miranda purposes, emphasizing the public and non-coercive nature of the encounter. The court noted that Eugene was questioned outside his apartment in broad daylight, was not physically restrained, and the officers did not use force or threats. Consequently, the court reinstated the trial court's suppression ruling and remanded the case to the court of appeals for further proceedings. View "People v. Eugene" on Justia Law

The defendant, Phillip Romero, was charged with multiple offenses, including assault and false imprisonment, after threatening and attacking his romantic partner. During jury selection, the prosecution used a peremptory strike to excuse Prospective Juror F, one of two Hispanic jurors in the pool. Romero raised a Batson challenge, arguing that the strike was racially motivated. The prosecution explained that the juror appeared disinterested and unfocused. The trial court denied the Batson challenge, finding the prosecution's reason credible and race-neutral.The Colorado Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's decision, concluding that the trial court had clearly erred in denying the Batson challenge. The appellate court held that the prosecution's reason lacked specific factual justification and objective evidence, and thus, the trial court should not have credited it. The appellate court ordered a new trial for Romero.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the appellate court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the appellate court misapplied the clear error standard of review by not deferring to the trial court's credibility determinations. The Supreme Court emphasized that the trial court is in the best position to assess demeanor and credibility. It found that the trial court had implicitly found the prosecution's reason credible and that the record supported this finding. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision and remanded the case for consideration of other issues raised by Romero on appeal. View "People v. Romero" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a defendant, Sterling Dwayne Austin, who was convicted of first-degree murder. Austin's first trial ended in a mistrial due to the jury's inability to reach a unanimous verdict. During the second trial, the prosecutor used a peremptory strike to excuse a potential juror, Juror 32, due to her activism to reform the Denver Police Department. Austin challenged this strike under Batson v. Kentucky, arguing that the strike was racially motivated. The trial court denied Austin's challenge, and Juror 32 was excused.On appeal, the appellate court only addressed one of Austin's four issues, concluding that the trial court's denial of Austin's Batson challenge entitled him to a new trial. The appellate court held that the prosecutor's reason for striking Juror 32 was not race-neutral, as it was based on Juror 32's negative experiences with law enforcement, which were racially charged.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado reversed the appellate court's decision. The Supreme Court found that the prosecutor's reason for striking Juror 32 was race-neutral, as it was based on Juror 32's potential bias against law enforcement, not her race. However, the Supreme Court also found that the trial court's findings were insufficient for an appellate court to review whether the trial court had considered all the pertinent circumstances in concluding that the strike was not made with a discriminatory purpose. Therefore, the Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings. View "People v. Austin" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant, Raeaje Resshaud Johnson, who was charged with multiple counts related to a domestic violence incident. During jury selection, the prosecutor used a peremptory strike against a Black potential juror, Juror M, who had indicated in a questionnaire that law enforcement had been disrespectful to her or those close to her based on race. The defense challenged this strike under Batson v. Kentucky, alleging it violated equal protection.The trial court sustained the strike, finding that the prosecutor had provided a race-neutral reason for the strike and that the defense had not proven purposeful racial discrimination. Johnson was subsequently convicted on most counts. On appeal, Johnson argued that the trial court had erred in denying his Batson challenge. The appellate court agreed, concluding that the prosecutor's reliance on Juror M's past experiences with law enforcement was a race-based reason for the strike. The court reversed Johnson's convictions and remanded for a new trial.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado disagreed with the appellate court's conclusion. It held that the prosecutor's reliance on Juror M's past experiences with law enforcement was a race-neutral reason for the strike. However, the Supreme Court found that the trial court had not made sufficient findings to indicate that it had considered all the pertinent circumstances in concluding that the strike was not made with a discriminatory purpose. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "People v. Johnson" on Justia Law

In this case from the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado, petitioner Claire E. Miller and respondent Jesse A. Amos were involved in a dispute related to eviction proceedings. Miller was a tenant who lived in a home owned and occupied by Amos. Their arrangement was an oral tenancy agreement where Miller agreed to provide pet care and light housekeeping services instead of paying rent. After six months, Amos served Miller with a notice to quit, alleging breach of their oral agreement. Miller refused to move out, and Amos filed a forcible entry and detainer (FED) complaint seeking eviction. Miller contended that her eviction was due to her refusal to engage in sexual acts with Amos, which she stated was a form of sex discrimination and retaliation under the Colorado Fair Housing Act (CFHA).The county court ruled in favor of Amos, stating that a landlord can serve a notice to quit for “no reason or any reason,” dismissing the CFHA violation claim as an affirmative defense for eviction. The district court affirmed this decision.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado reversed the lower court's ruling. The court held that a tenant can assert a landlord’s alleged violation of the CFHA as an affirmative defense to an FED eviction. The court noted that the purpose of the CFHA is to prevent discriminatory practices, and therefore, a tenant must be able to use it as a shield against a discriminatory eviction. The court also emphasized that a tenant's right to due process must be preserved even in eviction proceedings, which are intended to be expedited. This decision allows tenants in Colorado to assert discrimination or retaliation under the CFHA as a defense in eviction cases. View "Miller v. Amos" on Justia Law

In a case brought in the Colorado Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, Governor Jared Polis sought a declaration he was not a proper named defendant in a suit challenging the implementation of Colorado law and policy by the Colorado Department of Corrections (“CDOC”), an executive agency over which he had ultimate authority. The underlying suit challenged the treatment of transgender women in CDOC custody. The named plaintiffs representing the class were seven transgender women who were confined in CDOC correctional facilities. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint named the Governor, the CDOC, the CDOC Executive Director, and multiple current and former CDOC employees as defendants. The amended complaint alleged Defendants’ policies and practices discriminated against transgender women by refusing to recognize them as women and thus subjecting them to unreasonable risks of violence, failing to provide necessary accommodations, and offering inadequate medical and mental health care. The Governor argued that after the Supreme Court's decision in Developmental Pathways v. Ritter, 178 P.3d 524 (Colo. 2008), he should have no longer been named as a defendant if there was an identifiable agency, official, or employee responsible for administering a challenged law. Here, he argued the CDOC and its employees were the only appropriate defendants. To this, the Supreme Court disagreed: Developmental Pathways did not alter the longstanding rule that the Governor was an appropriate defendant in cases involving “his constitutional responsibility to uphold the laws of the state and to oversee Colorado’s executive agencies.” View "In re Raven v. Polis" on Justia Law