Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

At the time of his appeal, defendant John Hacke was out of custody. The issue his appeal presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review was whether Hacke was entitled to a preliminary hearing on the charge of identity theft, a class 4 felony. After Hacke was arrested, he posted bond. During a subsequent court appearance, he asserted that he was entitled to a preliminary hearing because he was facing mandatory sentencing. Since the State did not initially take a definitive position on this contention, the court scheduled a preliminary hearing. However, the court afforded the State an opportunity to object to the preliminary hearing later if warranted. When the parties appeared again, the court ruled that Hacke was not entitled to a preliminary hearing because identity theft didn't require mandatory sentencing. The district court denied Hacke’s request for a preliminary hearing. The Supreme Court concurred: "The relevant inquiry isn’t whether Hacke’s criminal history subjects him to mandatory sentencing if he is convicted of identity theft. It’s whether identity theft, the class 4 felony he’s accused of committing, requires a mandatory sentence. Class 4 felony identity theft does not require a mandatory sentence. Therefore, Hacke is not entitled to a preliminary hearing." View "Colorado v. Hacke" 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

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

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

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 an interlocutory appeal, the State challenged a trial court order that granted defendant Jorge Solis’ motion to disqualify the entire Seventh Judicial District Attorney’s Office because his public defender, began working for the DA’s office prosecuting his case. The issue presented here was whether, as Solis argued before the trial court, his attorney’s former representation of Solis constituted “special circumstances” under section20-1-107(2), C.R.S. (2022), requiring not just the attorney’s disqualification, but also disqualification of the entire DA’s Office. Following a half-day hearing, the trial court found that the DA’s Office had a screening policy in place and that it had taken additional precautions to wall the attorney off from Solis’s prosecution. The court thus concluded Solis had failed to establish that special circumstances existed such that “it [was] unlikely that [he] would receive a fair trial.” The Colorado Supreme Court concluded the trial court abused its discretion in granting Solis’s motion. The trial court’s determination that the attorney could potentially deviate from the screening policy in the future was based on his appearance in Mr. Flores-Molina’s case; it was not a determination that the attorney would violate the screening policy in this case or that confidential information from the attorney’s prior representation had not been or could not continue to be adequately screened from the attorneys prosecuting Solis’s case. Because there was no evidence in the record that Solis is unlikely to receive a fair trial, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s order disqualifying the entire DA’s Office. View "Colorado v. Solis" on Justia Law

Terrel Turner and Christopher Cruse were jointly tried and convicted on charges related to the burglary of a marijuana dispensary. On the second day of trial, Yolanda Cruse, who is Cruse’s wife and Turner’s friend, was arrested and charged with several counts stemming from a hostile encounter she had with the victim advocate and a prosecution witness just outside the courtroom. The trial judge ordered that Mrs. Cruse be excluded from the courtroom for the remainder of trial. The Colorado Supreme Court determined the trial court’s exclusion of Mrs. Cruse from the majority of the trial based on her alleged harassment of the victim advocate and a prosecution witness constituted a non-trivial, partial closure. Although the trial court failed to expressly apply the Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984) test, its findings and the record supported the conclusion that the closure order was justified under Waller and didn’t, therefore, violate defendants’ Sixth Amendment public trial right. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirms that portion of the court of appeals’ judgments concluding that the exclusion constituted a non-trivial, partial closure, and reversed the portion of the judgments reversing the convictions and remanding for a new trial. View "Colorado v. Turner" on Justia Law

Following a preliminary hearing, a magistrate determined that probable cause existed to believe that A.S.M. had committed the delinquent acts alleged. A.S.M. timely sought review of the magistrate’s probable cause determination. But the juvenile court declined to review the matter on the merits, ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the magistrate’s preliminary hearing finding did not constitute a final order. A.S.M. then invoked the Colorado Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court issued a rule to show cause. After review, the Supreme Court held that while only a district court magistrate’s final orders or judgments namely, those fully resolving an issue or claim were reviewable under C.R.M. 7(a)(3), the preliminary hearing statute in the Children’s Code, section 19-2.5-609(3), C.R.S. (2022), specifically permitted review of a magistrate’s preliminary hearing finding. "Therefore, we need not get in the middle of the parties’ tug-of-war over whether the magistrate’s preliminary hearing finding in this case constituted a final order. Instead, we hold that section 19-2.5-609(3) entitles prosecutors and juveniles alike to ask a juvenile court to review a magistrate’s preliminary hearing finding in a delinquency proceeding." View "In re Interest of A.S.M." on Justia Law

Eduardo Barrera was driving a Jeep SUV eastbound on I-70 with Isaiah Deaner in the passenger’s seat. Trooper Bollen, an officer patrolling the highway, saw the SUV pass by and noted that it was an apparent rental vehicle with Arizona plates. Trooper Bollen testified that he was suspicious because I-70 is a major drug corridor where traffickers frequently use rental vehicles to smuggle contraband, bulk narcotics, people, weapons, and cash. He further testified that he specifically noticed the Arizona plates because Arizona borders Mexico, a main source of bulk narcotics in this part of the country. In this interlocutory appeal of a suppression order, the Colorado Supreme Court considered whether a police officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop. Under the totality of the circumstances here, the Court concluded the officer lacked such reasonable suspicion. The Court therefore affirmed the trial court’s order suppressing the evidence obtained from the search, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Colorado v. Deaner" on Justia Law

Defendant Cheryl Plemmons intentionally spat on two sheriff deputies while they were attempting to determine if she was suicidal. The deputies arrested her for spitting on them, and the prosecution charged her with three counts of second degree assault: one under section 18-3-203(1)(f.5), C.R.S. (2022), and two under section 18-3-203(1)(h). A jury found her guilty of each count. On appeal, Plemmons argued the trial court incorrectly instructed the jury on an element of the offense: the scope of the term “harm” as it related to her intent in spitting on the officers. A division of the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction. Like the courts below, the Colorado Supreme Court held that “harm” as used in subsections 18-3-203(1)(f.5)(I) and (h) encompassed more than just physical harm. "Psychological harm can suffice." However, the Court concluded Plemmons was entitled to a new trial because the trial court’s jury instructions didn’t accurately convey the meaning of “harm” to the jury. Thus, judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Plemons v. Colorado" on Justia Law