Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Petitioner Thomas Lynn O'Hara, III was convicted of distribution of a schedule II controlled substance, adjudicated a habitual criminal, and sentenced to ninety-six years in the Department of Corrections. Prior to trial, Defendant moved unsuccessfully to suppress the State's wiretap evidence against him, contending, among other things, that the wiretaps were not properly authorized because the elected district attorney had not personally prepared or signed the applications to initiate or extend the wiretaps. On appeal, Defendant renewed his challenge to the wiretap evidence. The court of appeals held that the applicable law requires the attorney general or a district attorney to "specifically authorize a specific wiretap application," but the elected official "need not sign or personally submit the application." Because the court of appeals concluded that the record contained no finding by the trial court that the elected district attorney specifically authorized the wiretaps, it remanded the case for further proceedings. Upon review, the Supreme Court agreed in substance with the court of appeals' statutory interpretation, and affirmed the court's decision to remand for further proceedings. The Supreme Court concluded that while the lack of the elected official's signature on the application is not fatal, in the absence of the elected official's signature, the requisite personal authorization cannot be presumed. "Under such circumstances, the prosecution must show compliance with section 16-15-102(1)(a) by establishing that the application was personally authorized by the attorney general or elected district attorney. This compliance may be shown through the sworn testimony or affidavit of the elected official, or similar proof." View "O'Hara v. Colorado" on Justia Law

The Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, LLC, with Martha Altman, Eric Mote, and John Davis (collectively, Students), filed a complaint against the University of Colorado's Board of Regents alleging that the Board's Weapons Control Policy 14-I (which prohibits the carrying of handguns on campus by all persons but certified law enforcement personnel) violates the Colorado Concealed Carry Act (CCA) and the Colorado Constitution's right to bear arms. The Board filed a motion to dismiss which the district court granted. The Students appealed, and the court of appeals reversed, holding that the Students stated a claim for relief because the CCA expressly applied to "all areas of the state." The court further concluded that the Students had stated a claim for relief under article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution, which affords individuals the right to bear arms in self-defense. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the CCA's comprehensive statewide purpose, broad language, and narrow exclusions show that the General Assembly intended to divest the Board of Regents of its authority to regulate concealed handgun possession on campus. Accordingly, the Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeals that, by alleging the Policy violated the CCA, the Students stated a claim for relief. View "Regents of the University of Colorado v. Students for Concealed Carry on Campus" on Justia Law

"Judicial redistricting is a truly 'unwelcome obligation.'" This case involved the redistricting of Colorado's congressional districts following the results of the 2010 census. The Supreme Court held that the district court adopted a lawful redistricting scheme in accordance with constitutional criteria, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in balancing the non-constitutional factors as set forth in C.R.S. 2-1-102 (2011). Furthermore, the Court held that the balancing was reasonable and supported by the evidence that was heard through the district court’s "thorough, inclusive and non-partisan proceedings." The Court affirmed the district court’s order that the secretary of state implement the adopted redistricting scheme in future congressional elections. View "Hall v. Moreno" on Justia Law

Petitioner Accord Human Resources, Inc. (Accord) is a professional employer organization that transacts business in Colorado along with four related entities. In 2004, Accord transferred a portion of its Colorado employees to another Accord entity with a lower unemployment tax rate and in doing so, reduced its unemployment tax burden. The Colorado Division of Employment and Training determined that it had authority to treat the various Accord entities as one for purposes of assessing unemployment taxes, thus erasing any tax advantage that could be gained through the employee transfer. Under this rationale, the Division issued a delinquent tax notice to Accord. Accord appealed, and the hearing officer reversed. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed the Industrial Claim Appeals Office's Final Order and reinstated the hearing officer's decision. The Division sought to reverse the court of appeals decision. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's decision, finding that nothing gave the Division authority to combine separate employer tax accounts into one account for purposes of assessing unemployment taxes. View "Colorado Div. of Employment & Training v. Accord Human Resources, Inc" on Justia Law

Respondent Abel Laeke was charged with one count of criminal attempt to commit unlawful sexual contact and one count of indecent exposure as a result of events that the State alleged occurred while he was a patient at the psychiatric ward at Denver Health Medical Center in 2004. At a preliminary hearing, the county court found probable cause to believe that Respondent committed the crimes and bound the charges over for proceedings in the district court. A trial court is required to hold a preliminary hearing if there has been no grand jury indictment or preliminary hearing prior to the entry of a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI). At arraignment, Respondent's attorney sought to enter a plea of NGRI over Respondent's objection. A doctor at the Colorado Mental Health Institute opined that Respondent was then legally incompetent. After Respondent was restored to competency, the prosecution stated that it would stipulate to the plea of NGRI, thereby agreeing that Respondent was insane on the date of the commission of the offense. Respondent's counsel again asked the court to accept the NGRI plea over Respondent's objection. The court asked Respondent if he had anything he'd like to say, and he responded "I think [my attorney] summed it up for me but I'm hoping to prove that I didn't do this in trial." Based on the prosecution's stipulation and the mental health evaluations before it, the district court accepted the NGRI plea and then found Respondent NGRI. The court then committed Respondent to the Department of Human Services. Respondent appealed, and the court of appeals held that Respondent was deprived of his right to a jury trial. The court of appeals held that Respondent had both a statutory and a constitutional right to a jury trial on the merits and his affirmative defense of insanity. After its review of the appellate court's decision, the Supreme Court held that when a defendant has entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and the prosecution concedes that the defendant was insane at the time of the commission of the offense, the defendant has neither a statutory nor a constitutional right to a jury trial on the affirmative defense of insanity or the merits of the charged offense. Accordingly, the supreme court reversed the appellate court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Laeke v. Colorado" on Justia Law

During the November 2008 election season, parties Senate Majority Fund, LLC (SMF) and Colorado Leadership Fund (CLF) were registered with the I.R.S. as so-called "527" tax-exempt political organizations. In the run-up to the November 2008 election, SMF distributed eight printed political ads and one television ad and CLF distributed eight printed ads that were the subject of this dispute. None of the seventeen ads contained words or phrases that specifically directed the viewer to "vote for," "elect," "support," "vote against," "defeat," or "reject." Similarly, none of the ads included the phrase "[candidate] for [office]." The court of appeals affirmed dismissal of this case by an administrative law judge (ALJ) for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. At issue is the meaning of "expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate," as that phrase is used within the definition of "expenditure" in article XXVIII of the Colorado Constitution, the Campaign and Political Finance provision. The parties contended that "express advocacy" encompassed only those advertisements that explicitly exhort the viewer, listener, or reader to vote for or against a candidate in an upcoming election. This included the use of so-called "magic words," as set forth in "Buckley v. Valeo," (424 U.S. 1, 44 n.52 (1976)), as well as substantially similar synonyms of those words. Appellant Colorado Ethics Watch (Ethics Watch) argued that the category of advertisements that "expressly advocate" is more expansive and encompasses any advertisement that is the functional equivalent of express advocacy. The court of appeals rejected Ethics Watch's argument and held that, given the settled definition of express advocacy at the time that article XXVIII of the Colorado Constitution was adopted, the category of advertisements that constitute express advocacy was intentionally limited to include only those ads that use the magic words or those that explicitly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate. After reviewing article XXVIII and the legal context in which it was adopted as a citizen's initiative in 2002 (known as Amendment 27), the Supreme Court agreed with the court of appeals that "expenditure" was intentionally and narrowly defined in article XXVIII to include only "express advocacy," so that it covers only those communications that explicitly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate in an upcoming election. The Court affirmed the appellate court and remanded the case to the court of appeals to return to the ALJ to enter judgment consistent with the Court's opinion. View "Colorado Ethics Watch v. Senate Majority Fund, LLC" on Justia Law

Petitioner Amanda Vinton, Esq. sought relief from orders of the probate court that permitted Respondent Sharon Virzi to amend her challenge to a trust administration by adding a claim of fraud against Vinton, the attorney for the trustee. Over Petitioner's objection, the probate court summarily granted Respondent's motion to amend, forcing Petitioner to withdraw as counsel for the trustee. The probate court subsequently summarily denied two motions by Petitioner to dismiss the claim against her and ordered her to pay Respondent's attorney fees for having to defend against a substantially frivolous and groundless motion. The Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause. Because Respondent's fraud claim was not plead with sufficient particularity to withstand a motion to dismiss, it was futile, and the probate court abused its discretion in permitting the joinder of her opponent's attorney. The Supreme Court found that whether or not Petitioner's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the separate fraud claim was meritorious, the record was inadequate to support an award of attorney fees. The rule was therefore made absolute, and the matter was remanded to the probate court with directions to dismiss Respondent's claim of fraud against Petitioner and to vacate its award of attorney fees. View "Vinton v. Virzi" on Justia Law

Geri David was attacked in the parking lot of a grocery store in 2004 by a man she later identified as Defendant Michael O'Shaughnessy. She was approached from behind by Defendant who was brandishing a six-inch hunting knife with a serrated blade. He held the knife to her face and ordered her into her car. She sat in the driver's seat with her feet outside of the car and kicked at her assailant to ward off the attack. As she lashed out at him, he stabbed her with the knife, causing injury to the right and left sides of her neck and throat, to her left thigh, and to her hand. Defendant demanded her money. David told him she did not have any money and turned toward the floor of the passenger seat to look for her purse. When she turned back, Defendant was gone. He did not reach for or take the purse. A jury convicted Defendant of attempted first degree murder with a deadly weapon, attempted aggravated robbery, second degree assault, false imprisonment, reckless endangerment, and a violent crime sentence enhancer. During the course of the trial, Defendant requested a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of abandonment. The trial court denied the request. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals' judgment and held that to present an affirmative defense of abandonment of an attempt crime for jury consideration, the defendant must present "some credible evidence" on the issue, and in this case, Defendant did not present such "credible evidence." Furthermore, the Court held that having injured the victim does not necessarily foreclose the affirmative defense of abandonment. View "O'Shaughnessy v. Colorado" on Justia Law

In this case, the Colorado Supreme Court held that the General Assembly had not classified firearms as per se deadly weapons for the purposes of the first degree burglary statute. The legislature did not intend theft of a firearm from a building to constitute first degree burglary regardless of the manner the burglar used or intended to use the firearm. The General Assembly superseded earlier decisions of the Colorado Supreme Court which held that firearms were per se deadly weapons. In 2005, Defendant Mark Montez broke through a window of a home in Lakewood, Colorado, entered and ransacked the home, took about $150 and a gun case containing two unloaded shotguns before leaving left. A jury convicted Defendant on two counts of first degree burglary (one for each shotgun), as well as two counts of possession of a weapon by a previous offender, one theft count, and six habitual criminal counts based on prior convictions. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions, but merged the two convictions for first degree burglary into one. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the statutory construction at issue in this case. Upon review, the Court held that the term "intended to be used" in the deadly weapon definition of section 18-1-901(3)(e) refers to the defendant's, not the manufacturer’s intent. The statute does not classify a firearm as a deadly weapon per se. In this case, the prosecution conceded that, if its argument that a firearm is per se a deadly weapon did not prevail, Defendant's could not stand. Accordingly, the Supreme Court vacated Defendant's conviction. View "Montez v. Colorado" on Justia Law

M.T. was charged in 2004 with sexual assault on a child. He pled guilty under terms of a deferred judgment to attempted sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust. Four years later, M.T. successfully completed the terms of the deferred judgment and withdrew his guilty plea. Pursuant to the deferred judgment, prosecutors dismissed the charge of attempted sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust. Thereafter, M.T. filed a civil petition to seal the criminal records associated with his case, pursuant to section 24-72-308(1), C.R.S. (2011). Over the prosecution’s objection, the district court granted the petition. That court reasoned that the exception contained in section 24-72-308(3)(c), which prohibits the sealing of "records pertaining to a conviction of an offense for which the factual basis involved unlawful sexual behavior," does not apply to a successfully-completed and dismissed deferred judgment. The court of appeals reversed. The majority held that files in a case dismissed after a deferred judgment contain records pertaining to a conviction and therefore the statutory exception precluded the sealing of M.T.'s records. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the court of appeals. View "M.T. v. Colorado" on Justia Law