Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in Colorado Supreme Court
by
The Denver Department of Human Services placed "A.C." in foster care when he was two days old. Before his first birthday, the juvenile court terminated his biological parents' rights, which made him available for adoption. The issue in this case centered on whether the prospective adoptive parents' due process rights were violated when the Department removed the child from their home without prior notice. At the time of the removal, the prospective parents had not yet initiated the adoption process. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that preadoptive foster patents do not possess a constitutionally protected liberty interest, and therefore, no due process violation occurred. View "M.S. v. Colorado" on Justia Law

by
Petitioner Joshua Dooly sought certiorari to appeal the court of appeals' judgment that affirmed the dismissal of his application for postconviction relief. The trial court denied his request for new counsel, and instead, granted his existing counsel's motion to dismiss the application altogether. The appellate court upheld the district court, reasoning that Petitioner's counsel of record could file motions on Petitioner's behalf in clear contravention of his client's wishes. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the district court erred in granting the motion to dismiss against Petitioner's wishes. The case was remanded back to the district court to reinstate Petitioner's application. View "Dooly v. Colorado" on Justia Law

by
The State filed an interlocutory appeal to challenge the trial court's suppression of drugs discovered in defendant's truck. Although the district court upheld the initial traffic stop, it found that defendant was illegally detained at the time of a narcotics dog sniff of his vehicle because the purpose for the initial stop had already been accomplished, and no other reasonable suspicion existed to support further investigation. The court therefore suppressed the results of the subsequent search. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the prosecution failed to present evidence supporting the police's suspicions that defendant had committed, was committing or was about to commit a crime other than a traffic offense, they lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain him for further questioning or investigation. The contraband seized from his vehicle was therefore properly suppressed as the product of an illegal detention. View "Colorado v. Mason" on Justia Law

by
Plaintiffs initiated this action in 2005 for declaratory and injunctive relief. They claimed that the current Colorado public school financing system violated the Education Clause because the system failed to provide sufficient funding to support a "thorough and uniform" system of free public schools. Plaintiffs also claimed that local school districts' lack of sufficient financial resources, coupled with the system's restrictions on spending, prevented districts from exerting meaningful control over educational instruction and quality in violation of the Local Control Clause. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the public school financing system complied with the Colorado Constitution, and reversed the trial court's finding that the public school financing system was unconstitutional. View "Colorado v. Lobato" on Justia Law

by
The State appealed the denial of a motion to quash subpoenas that Respondent John Brothers served on the parents of an alleged child-victim of sexual assault. The subpoenas ordered the parents to appear at Respondent's preliminary hearing and to bring their minor son, the alleged victim. The State argued in its motion that the victim's testimony was not necessary for the probable cause determination, and that he stood to suffer unnecessary psychological harm if required to appear. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the county court abused its discretion in refusing to consider the motion to quash at the preliminary hearing. The Court agreed with the State that there was a possibility of harm to the child even if he was not ultimately required to testify. View "Colorado v. Brothers" on Justia Law

by
Police arrived at Respondent Kim Fuerst's residence in response to a possible protection order violation. Fuerst's wife cooperated with the police's request to answer the door, eventually giving the police consent to search the residence. Officers found a bedroom door locked. The record indicated that Respondent was in the bedroom at the time; police managed to unlock the door, and there was no express objection to that entry. Officers found Respondent sitting on the floor "and in the company of numerous firearms." The officers detained Respondent and removed him from the residence. Officers later learned Respondent was a convicted felon. Respondent was later charged with four counts of possession of a weapon by a previous offender, and three counts of violation of the protection order. Respondent moved to suppress evidence of the firearms possession, arguing that his decision to silently remain behind the locked door inside the residence was not a valid consent to the police search. The Supreme Court disagreed, finding that the wife's free and voluntary consent to search was valid as to Respondent. View "Colorado v. Fuerst" on Justia Law

by
Mile High Cab, Inc. appealed directly to the Supreme Court to challenge a district court denial of its application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. After a "lengthy" hearing, the administrative law judge (ALJ) to whom the application had been assigned found that several incumbent carriers opposing the application had adequately proved that granting the application would be detrimental to the public interest. The Public Utilities Commission (PUC) ultimately adopted the ALJ's recommendation. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the record did not clearly contain the finding statutorily required for a denial of Mile High's application by the PUC. As such, the Court reversed the district court, and remanded the case back to the PUC for further consideration. View "Mile High Cab, Inc. v. Colo. Pub. Utils. Comm'n" on Justia Law

by
In a case involving breach of fiduciary duty and misappropriation of trade secrets claims, the plaintiffs sought to inspect personal and business computers, smartphones, and other electronic storage devices belonging to the lead defendant and his wife, who was not a party to the case. The plaintiffs also requested discovery of approximately three years of the defendants' telephone records. After the defendants refused to permit the inspection the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel. Over the defendants' objection on privacy grounds and in a brief order concerning this and other discovery matters, the trial court granted the plaintiffs' motion and ordered the defendants to permit inspection of the requested items and records. The trial court also awarded attorneys' fees associated with the discovery dispute to the plaintiffs. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by granting a motion to compel discovery without making findings of fact balancing defendants' asserted privacy interest with plaintiffs' need for the information sought. Accordingly, the Court vacated the portion of the trial court's order compelling the discovery, and remanded the case to the trial court. View "In re Gateway Logistics, Inc. v. Smay" on Justia Law

by
The issue before the Supreme Court in these cases was whether a trial court could refer to prospective jurors by number instead of name in open court as a matter of routine policy. Defendant Rene Perez argued that the trial court's practice created an "anonymous jury" and as such, the jury should have been assessed under the anonymous jury framework devised by the federal courts. Defendants argued that because the trial court failed to follow that framework in this case, failing to demonstrate "good cause" for the practice, defendant's right to a fair trial was violated. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment that referring to prospective jurors by number did not invalidate defendant's conviction nor violate his constitutional rights. View "Perez v. Colorado" on Justia Law

by
The State filed an interlocutory appeal to the Supreme Court seeking relief from a district court order that suppressed statements of Defendant Jesus Luna-Solis as well as certain DNA evidence. Although the court found that the statements in question were voluntary and made after an effective waiver of Miranda rights, it nevertheless suppressed them on the grounds that the Sixth Amendment barred the police from questioning defendant without counsel present. The court suppressed the DNA evidence on grounds that police in the execution of a Crim. P. 41.1 order of a County Court, sought the order for the benefit of the prosecution in this case, and that after filing a motion to admit evidence of an uncharged assault, the prosecution was permitted to acquire non-testimonial identification evidence from defendant, even to verify his identity as a perpetrator in the assault, only according to Crim. P. 16 II (a)(2), governing discovery in this case. Because defendant's Miranda waiver effectively waived his right to counsel as guaranteed by not only the Fifth but also the Sixth Amendment, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court erred in suppressing statements as a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Because Crim. P. 16 II imposes disclosure obligations on criminal defendants without simultaneously barring the use of evidence acquired through otherwise lawful investigation, the Court also found that the district court erred in finding a discovery violation and excluding DNA evidence. The district court's suppression order was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Colorado v. Luna-Solis" on Justia Law