Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The State sought interlocutory review of a trial court decision finding Bradley Clark was in custody so as to trigger "Miranda" when he made statements to law enforcement during the execution of a search warrant prior to his formal arrest. The trial court granted Clark's motion to suppress the statements. Firefighters were dispatched to a grocery store in Durango, Colorado to address a fire inside the store. They determined the fire had been set intentionally, and requested police department assistance. Based on review of security camera footage, police pinpointed the suspect who walked from the area of the fire to the self-checkout lines. At his residence, detectives in plain clothes, and one officer in uniform, discussed Clark's whereabouts through the door. They asked Clark if he would be willing to discuss his whereabouts outside; Clark acquiesced, wishing to avoid alarming his wife and children. Notwithstanding prior statements that he knew nothing about the incident, Clark said that he knew about the fire because he had read about it on the internet and that he and his wife had “joked about it.” Having heard Clark contradict himself a number of times, Detective Newman told Clark that there were video cameras in the store and that based on the footage, Clark was the suspect. While Detective Newman spoke with Clark outside, the other officers searched the home. Detective Newman testified that he did not place Clark in handcuffs while the two were talking, nor did he put any other kind of restraints on Clark or otherwise limit Clark's movement. The detective further testified he did not give Clark a Miranda advisement, stating that once Clark was under arrest, he did not question Clark further. Clark pleaded not guilty, resulting in the motion to suppress at issue here. The Colorado Supreme Court determined Clark was not in custody for Miranda purposes when the detective questioned him outside his home regarding the fire that occurred at the grocery store. The trial court erred in suppressing statements Clark made at the time. View "Colorado v. Clark" on Justia Law

John Halaseh petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court for review of a court of appeals' remand order which directed the trial court to enter four convictions for class 4 felony theft in place of the single conviction of class 3 felony theft reflected in the charge and jury verdict. The intermediate appellate court reversed the conviction for class 3 felony theft on the grounds that when the statutory authorization for aggregating separate acts of theft was properly applied, there was insufficient evidence to support a single conviction for theft of $20,000 or more. It also found, however, that there was sufficient evidence to support four separate convictions for aggregated thefts with values qualifying as class 4 felonies, and that substituting these four class 4 felony convictions for the vacated class 3 felony conviction was necessary to fulfill what it understood to be its obligation to maximize the effect of the jury’s verdict. The Supreme Court disapproved of the appellate court's revision to Halaseh's sentence, finding that no such offense was implicitly found by the jury, and therefore none could be entered in lieu of the reversed conviction without depriving defendant of his right to a jury trial. The matter was remanded with directions to simply reverse the conviction for a class 3 felony theft. View "Halaseh v. Colorado" on Justia Law

After being charged, fourteen-year-old G.S.S. was detained for more than three months without bail, even though he had not entered a plea and had not been tried on the charges against him. At that point, G.S.S.’s counsel filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that G.S.S.’s “right to a speedy trial” had been violated under section 19-2-509(4)(b), C.R.S. (2019). The trial court agreed and dismissed the case against G.S.S. with prejudice, and the court of appeals affirmed in Colorado in Interest of G.S.S., 2019 COA 4M, __ P.3d __. The Colorado Supreme Court then granted certiorari to determine the proper remedy for a violation of the sixty-day limit in section 19-2-509(4)(b). The Supreme Court determined the remedy for a section 19-2-509(4)(b) violation was for the trial court to immediately hold a bail hearing and order the juvenile's release. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed. View "Colorado In Interest of G.S.S." on Justia Law

Defendant Pamela Coke was charged with sexual assault on a child. The prosecution filed this interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order suppressing: (1) evidence obtained from Coke’s cell phone; and (2) certain statements she made to the police before her formal arrest. After review, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed that portion of the trial court’s order suppressing the evidence from Coke’s cell phone, but reversed the portion suppressing her statements. The Court determined the warrant at issue in this case contained no particularity as to the alleged victim or to the time period during which the assault allegedly occurred. "Rather, it permitted the officers to search all texts, videos, pictures, contact lists, phone records, and any data that showed ownership or possession. We conclude that such broad authorization violates the particularity demanded by the Fourth Amendment." Because the warrant authorized a general search of Coke's phone, it was also unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The matter was remanded for further proceedings. View "Coke v. Colorado" on Justia Law

Abel Lujan was charged with first-degree murder for the death of his girlfriend after she was found beaten and strangled behind a friend’s house. At trial, two women testified for the State about Lujan’s prior violent behavior towards them. Prior to admitting this evidence, the trial court read a limiting instruction, telling the jury that it could only consider the evidence for the purposes of establishing Lujan’s motive, intent, or common plan. A copy of this instruction was not given to the jury for deliberations; however, the jury did receive an instruction at the close of the evidence explaining that certain evidence could only be considered for the limited purposes for which it was admitted. While deliberating, the jury submitted a question seeking clarification about the limiting instruction. Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court cleared the courtroom of the public and parties, leaving only the judge, bailiff, and court reporter; the judge then brought in the jury and reread the limiting instruction that it had previously read twice in open court. The jury ultimately found Lujan guilty of second-degree murder. Lujan appealed, arguing that the court’s actions when rereading the jury instruction constituted a courtroom closure that violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. A division of the court of appeals agreed and reversed Lujan’s conviction. The State argued on certiorari review that the Colorado Supreme Court adopt a triviality standard, under which a defendant’s constitutional right to a public trial was not violated when the closure at issue was trivial. In so doing, the State argued that the brief courtroom closure here was trivial and therefore did not violate Lujan’s public trial right. The Court concurred with the State, adopted the standard and reversed the appellate court's decision. View "Colorado v. Lujan" on Justia Law

For nearly a year and a half, Edward DeGreat sat in prison awaiting a new trial after his earlier convictions were reversed. Colorado’s speedy trial statute, required that retrial after reversal take place within six months of the trial court’s receipt of the mandate after appeal. This six-month period could be tolled when the delay is attributable to the defendant; here, respondents argued the delay was attributable to DeGreat because defense counsel did not reach out to schedule a status conference. The Colorado Supreme Court found Colorado law reflected the long-standing principle that a defendant had no duty to bring himself to trial. The Court granted DeGreat’s petition and held the charges against DeGreat had to be dismissed with prejudice. View "In re Colorado v. DeGreat" on Justia Law

After Laron Donald was arrested and charged with a felony, the district court set bond and announced the next court date. Donald subsequently posted bond and was released from jail. The one-page bond provided that as a condition of his release, Donald was prohibited from leaving the state of Colorado without approval of the court and the surety. Donald failed to appear at his next scheduled court date, and the court issued a warrant for his arrest. Five weeks later, Donald was pulled over for a traffic violation in Mississippi; the officer discovered Donald had outstanding Colorado warrants and arrested him. Donald was subsequently extradited to Colorado and charged with several counts of violation of bail bond conditions under section 18-8-212(1), C.R.S. (2019). The issue his case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on: (1) what role, if any, the prohibition on inference stacking set out in Tate v. Colorado, 247 P.2d 665 (Colo. 1952), should play in sufficiency of the evidence challenges in criminal cases; and (2) whether sufficient evidence supported Donald’s conviction for violation of bail bond conditions. After review of the specific facts of this case, the Supreme Court concluded: (1) the presence of stacked inferences was not alone dispositive of a sufficiency of the evidence claim (it is one factor that a court may consider in determining whether the evidence presented satisfied the prevailing substantial evidence test for evidence sufficiency); and (2) the prosecution here presented sufficient evidence to support Donald’s conviction for violating the bail bond condition prohibiting him from leaving the state without permission. Accordingly, judgment of the division below was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Colorado v. Donald" on Justia Law

Based on an incident that occurred between January 3 and 4, 2018, the State of Colorado charged Paul Rosas with two counts of second degree assault on a peace officer (class 4 felonies), two counts of attempted second degree assault on a peace officer (class 5 felonies), and one count of obstructing a peace officer (a class 2 misdemeanor). Rosas filed a notice of the affirmative defense of “impaired mental condition” pursuant to section 16-8-103.5, C.R.S. (2019), asserting that at the time of the offenses he was suffering from a mental disease or defect that made him incapable of forming the requisite culpable mental state. But this affirmative defense hadn't existed in Colorado "for a quarter of a century." The State objected to Rosas’s notice of the defense of impaired mental condition, but only on the ground that it was untimely. After a hearing, the district court overruled the State's objection and “allow[ed] [Rosas] to enter an affirmative defense of impaired mental condition.” It then ordered an examination “for impaired mental condition.” The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on whether a defendant charged with specific intent crimes had to plead not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGRI”) in order to introduce evidence that, as a result of a mental disease or defect, he was incapable of forming the requisite culpable mental state on the dates of the offenses charged. The district court said “no.” The Supreme Court ruled the answer was “yes.” "Evidence that a mental disease or defect prevented a defendant from forming the culpable mental state required by an offense charged is evidence relevant to the issue of insanity. And a defendant—even one charged with specific intent crimes—cannot introduce evidence relevant to the issue of insanity without first pleading NGRI." View "In re Colorado v. Rosas" on Justia Law

William Lindsey persuaded six investors to advance roughly $3 million toward a new technology that he claimed would harness the energy of bioluminescent algae to light signs and panels. In soliciting these funds, Lindsey told his investors that he had already secured contracts to sell his lighting products to several large clients. As it turned out, neither the technology nor the contracts existed; Lindsey diverted the funds he collected to his own personal use. Trial setting was continued at least seven times in three years. David Tyler was Lindsey’s fourth attorney in this case, and judges had admonished Tyler and Lindsey there would be no more continuances. A month before trial, Tyler moved to withdraw from the case, but his motion was denied after a hearing in front of a different judge who found no irreconcilable conflict. On the eve of trial, Tyler filed another motion, this one challenging Lindsey’s competency. The factual assertions in this motion were the same factual assertions on which Tyler relied during the hearing on the motion to withdraw ten days earlier: Lindsey had failed to be completely forthright with him, to keep promises to furnish information and funds for an effective defense, and to diligently work and communicate with him. In all the years the case had been pending, this was the first time anyone had ever raised a question about Lindsey’s competency. During the hearing on the competency motion, just as during previous hearings, Lindsey was lucid and coherent, showing no signs of incompetency. Tyler believed that Colorado's competency statutes required the trial court to either make a preliminary finding regarding competency or indicate that there was insufficient evidence to do so. But the trial judge found the motion’s factual assertions had nothing to do with competency and did not support a good-faith doubt about Lindsey’s competency. Accordingly, the judge refused to postpone the trial. The case thus proceeded to a jury trial, where Lindsey was convicted of securities fraud and theft. Lindsey then appealed, and a division of the court of appeals vacated his convictions. Because the Colorado Supreme Court found no abuse of discretion by the trial court, it reversed the appeals court's judgment. View "Colorado v. Lindsey" on Justia Law

Osmundo Cali was charged with one count of theft of a thing of value of one thousand dollars or more but less than twenty thousand dollars, then a class four felony. In addition, he was charged with one count of theft by receiving and two habitual criminal counts. The charges stemmed from allegations that Cali took metal storm grates from a construction site and sold them to a scrap metal processing company. The evidence established that the stolen grates were worth approximately $2,616, based on the price paid for them by the construction company. Cali’s case proceeded to trial, a jury convicted him of the two substantive offenses, and the trial court adjudicated him a habitual criminal. The court then sentenced Cali to eighteen years on each of the substantive counts, to be served concurrently in the Department of Corrections. Cali appealed. The Court of Appeals agreed that Cali could not be convicted of both theft and theft by receiving of the same property and vacated his conviction for theft, allowing the theft by receiving conviction to stand. The Colorado Supreme Court subsequently denied Cali’s petition for a writ of certiorari, and the mandate issued on May 11, 2015. On June 5, 2013, while Cali’s appeal was pending, an amendment to the theft statute became effective. Pertinent here, the amended statute eliminated the separate crime of theft by receiving and incorporated that offense into the general theft provision. It also modified the classifications for theft. Although these amendments took effect prior to the date on which Cali’s appellate counsel filed the opening brief in Cali’s direct appeal, Cali did not address in his appeal the applicability of these provisions to his case. After the court of appeals issued its mandate in Cali’s case, Cali filed a pro se petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Crim. P. 35(c). In this petition, Cali raised, as pertinent here, a claim for relief based on a “Substantial Change In The Law.” The Supreme Court concluded Cali was not entitled to the benefit of the statutory amendment because he did not seek relief based on that amendatory legislation until after his or her conviction became final. View "Colorado v. Cali" on Justia Law