Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The trial court ruling at issue in this case arises out of post-conviction proceedings following the imposition of the death sentence for Robert Ray. Ray was convicted of first degree murder for killing Javad Marshall-Fields, a key prosecution witness, and his fiancée Vivian Wolfe. Leading up to Rayâs trial, his counsel provided him with discovery from which Ray and a co-defendant figured out who the key prosecution witnesses were. On several occasions, Ray tried to arrange to have those witnesses killed. Ray, through associates, made a number of threats against Marshall-Fields and even offered him money not to testify. Marshall-Fields would later die from a âdrive-byâ shooting by one of Rayâs associates. The prosecution placed a large number of witnesses into witness protection. For those witnesses who did not want protection, the prosecution promised to keep their addresses from defense counsel and the defendant to secure their cooperation at trial. The trial court issued protective orders, and set up a procedure where defense counsel could call witnesses from the prosecutionâs office without learning their phone numbers, if the witnesses were willing to be interviewed. A jury convicted Ray of murder and returned a death sentence. Ray appealed the conviction and sentence, arguing the protective order and witness interview procedure violated his constitutional rights to confront witnesses against him. Recognizing that a trial court must balance between the defendantâs right to discovery of key witnesses and the extraordinary threat to witness safety posed by defendantâs murder of another witness, the Supreme Court found that defendantâs rights were not violated in light of the circumstances of the case. The Court held that the trial court abused its discretion when it lifted the protective order and required the prosecution to disclose the addresses of the protected witnesses. The court reversed the trial courtâs disclosure order.

South Fork Water and Sanitation District (District) petitioned for a declaratory judgment to prevent the Town of South Fork (Town) from acquiring water rights and water systems to serve its residents. A significant portion of the Town overlaps the Districtâs boundaries. Between 2001 and 2003, the District began to develop a utility plan that included construction of a centralized water system. The District took preliminary steps toward the provision of water service, but failed to secure the necessary funding to build the centralized water system. With no money, the District could not purchase existing water systems in the area. The Town is authorized under its charter to provide water service to its residents, and began preparations to do so in 2006. The District filed a declaratory judgment complaint against the Town alleging the Town was furnishing water services within the Districtâs boundaries without approval. The Supreme Court found that because the District did not provide water to the Town, and could not demonstrate that it could, the District could not withhold approval to the Town to provide water service. The Court affirmed the appellate courtâs decision.