Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on the valuation for real property tax purposes of the Lodge at Vail (“the Lodge”), a luxury resort property that included a hotel, privately owned condominiums, and amenities. The Court granted certiorari to consider whether: (1) fees paid by the condominium owners to a third-party company that managed the rental of their condominiums to overnight guests was intangible personal property that had to be excluded from the actual value of the Lodge under the income approach to valuation; and (2) the net income generated from such fees should have been included in the Lodge’s actual value under the income approach. The Supreme Court concluded the net income generated from rentals of the individually and separately owned condominium units was not income generated by the Lodge and therefore should not have been included in the Lodge’s actual value under the income approach to valuation. The Court therefore reversed the judgment of the division below, and did not consider whether the contractual right to net rental management income generated from the condominiums constituted intangible personal property that had to be excluded from the Lodge’s actual value under the income approach to valuation. View "Lodge Properties v. Eagle County" on Justia Law

Brooke Rojas was convicted of two counts of theft based on her improper receipt of food stamp benefits. Rojas initially applied for food stamp benefits from the Department of Human Services in August 2012 when she had no income. She received a recertification letter in December, which she submitted in mid-January 2013, indicating that she still had no income. And although she had not yet received a paycheck when she submitted the recertification letter, Rojas had started a new job on January 1. Rojas continued receiving food stamp benefits every month until July, when she inadvertently allowed them to lapse. She reapplied in August 2013. Although still working, Rojas reported that she had no income. The Department checked Rojas’s employment status in connection with the August application and learned that she was making about $55,000 a year (to support a family of seven). The Department determined that Rojas had received $5,632 in benefits to which she was not legally entitled. At trial, Rojas’s defense was that she lacked the requisite culpable mental state—she didn’t knowingly deceive the government; she just misunderstood the forms. Before trial, Rojas objected to the prosecution’s proposed admission of the August 2013 application because it exceeded the time period of the charged offenses and didn’t lead to the receipt of any benefits. The prosecution countered that the application was admissible as res gestae evidence—to show how the investigation began—and as evidence of specific intent. The court found it relevant as circumstantial evidence of Rojas’s mental state. In its opinion issued upon Rojas' appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded it was "time for us to bury res gestae. ... By continuing to rely on res gestae as a standalone basis for admissibility and allowing the vagueness of res gestae to persist next to these more analytically demanding rules of relevancy, we have created a breeding ground for confusion, inconsistency, and unfairness." The Court's decision to abolish the res gestate doctrine in criminal cases prompted it to reverse judgment and remand for a new trial. View "Rojas v. Colorado" on Justia Law

In 2013, Respondent Ray Ojeda was charged with kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and shooting a fifteen-year-old girl back in 1997. The victim, who survived, reported the crime immediately but could not identify the perpetrator. The investigation eventually stalled out. At some point in time, the Denver Police Department’s Crime Lab misplaced the victim’s rape kit. Years later, when the police found and retested evidence from the victim’s rape kit, DNA from the vaginal swab matched Ojeda. The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on a split decision of a division of the court of appeals, which held that the trial court erred in denying Ojeda’s challenge to an allegedly discriminatory jury strike under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), during the jury selection process. The Supreme Court held that because the prosecution offered an explicitly race-based reason for striking Juror R.P., it did not meet its burden of providing a race-neutral explanation for the strike, as required under step two of the Batson test. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, albeit on other grounds. View "Colorado v. Ojeda" on Justia Law

The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed Nicholas Garcia, Jr's conviction for second degree kidnapping. The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the phrase “seizes and carries,” as used in the second degree kidnapping statute, 18-3-302(1), C.R.S. (2021), meant “any movement, however short in distance.” Because the trial court’s instruction allowed the jury to convict Garcia without finding that he seized the victim or moved the victim from “one place to another” as required by the statute, the Supreme Court held that the trial court committed reversible error. Accordingly, judgment was reversed and the matter remanded with directions to remand to the trial court for a new trial. View "Garcia v. Colorado" on Justia Law

A county court ruled that defendant Nicholas Greer was not entitled to state-funded legal representation because he was not indigent. The State charged defendant with careless driving and leaving the scene of an accident. Greer applied for court-appointed counsel by completing and submitting Judicial Department Form (“JDF”) 208. In attempting to establish his indigency, Greer reported that he was unemployed and had no income or assets. He acknowledged, however, that he and his daughter lived rent-free in his parents’ home and that his parents covered all of his household expenses. Greer further disclosed that his household had a monthly gross income of $7,200 and monthly expenses totaling approximately $6,000. After reviewing Greer’s application, the public defender concluded that he was indigent and thus qualified for court-appointed counsel. The county court questioned that assessment, however. In response, the public defender argued that Greer’s parents’ income should not be considered because, although they have “chosen to share their home” with him and cover his household expenses, they had “not chosen to share their income” with him. The public defender then noted that Greer’s parents are not willing to pay for an attorney to represent him in this case and that he has no basis to compel them to do so. The Colorado Supreme Court concluded defendant was indeed indigent: "when his parents’ income is excluded from the indigency determination, it becomes readily apparent that the defendant’s current financial status does not afford him equal access to the legal process." Because the county court took into account defendant’s parents’ income in rejecting his application for court-appointed counsel, the Court reversed the county court and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Colorado v. Greer" on Justia Law

The district court in this case affirmed a county court's determination that Thomas Pearson was not entitled to a self-defense instruction as a matter of law, with respect to a pending harassment charge. The issue his case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court was whether a defendant charged with harassment could claim self-defense as an affirmative defense. The charge arose as Pearson, working as a roadside assistance tow-truck driver, got into an altercation with another driver, Timothy O'Kelly. The Supreme Court concluded a defendant could assert self-defense as an affirmative defense to the crime of harassment so long as there was some credible evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find that they acted with intent to alarm, as outlined in section 18-9-111(1)(a), C.R.S. (2021), as a means of self-defense. Judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Pearson v. Colorado" on Justia Law

In this case, the court of appeals affirmed petitioner William Pettigrew’s judgment of conviction for pandering of a child and tampering with a witness or victim. Pettigrew claimed that the trial court’s statements to the jury venire during voir dire lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof in violation of due process. Additionally, he contended the appellate erred in determining that a warrant to search his cell phone and the warrant’s supporting affidavit satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement. In his view, had the courts below properly redacted from the warrant all information obtained as a result of his initial unlawful arrest, the warrant would not have sufficiently described the place to be searched. The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that, although a number of the trial court’s comments during voir dire were problematic, on the facts presented here, there was no reasonable likelihood that the jury would have understood the court’s statements, in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record, to lower the prosecution’s burden of proof below the reasonable doubt standard. In addition, assuming without deciding that the warrant and its supporting affidavit, when properly redacted, did not satisfy the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement, the Supreme Court concluded any error in admitting at trial the evidence obtained from Pettigrew’s cell phone was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. "This evidence was cumulative of other evidence presented, and the evidence of Pettigrew’s guilt was overwhelming." Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's judgment, but for somewhat different reasons. View "Pettigrew v. Colorado" on Justia Law

Colorado’s "Make My Day" law, section 18-1-704.5, C.R.S. (2021), addressed the justified use of force against intruders in the home. "But the nickname is a misnomer." Though wide-ranging, the statute’s safe harbor in no way permitted an occupant of a dwelling to egg on intruders to do something so as to have an excuse to shoot them. As pertinent here, the statute provided immunity from criminal prosecution for the use of physical force (including deadly physical force) against an intruder when certain specified conditions are met. The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review was whether defendant Patrick Rau was in a dwelling when he shot and killed an intruder in the basement of a house where he and his girlfriend rented an apartment. A division of the court of appeals concluded that the basement, which was accessible to all of the building’s tenants and contained the building’s heat and water controls, was part of Rau’s dwelling, therefore, affirming the district court’s ruling that Rau was immune from prosecution for using deadly physical force against the intruder. Relying on the definition of “dwelling” in section 18-1-901(3)(g), C.R.S. (2021), the Supreme Court held that the basement was part of Rau’s dwelling because it was part of the building that he used for habitation. "And just as some of the usual uses of the garage in [Colorado v. Jiminez, 651 P.2d 395, 396 (Colo. 1982)] were incidental to and part of the use of the residence itself, some of the usual uses of the basement in this case were likewise incidental to and part of the use of Rau’s residence. Accordingly, we affirm the division." View "Colorado v. Rau" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's consideration was whether a trial court’s comments to a jury venire attempting to explain the concept of reasonable doubt effectively lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof. Although the Court granted certiorari to consider three questions, the Court surmised there were really two issues to decide: (1) the proper test for determining whether a trial court’s comments to prospective jurors lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof; and (2) whether the example that the trial court used here to explain the concept of reasonable doubt lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof. The Court concluded the proper test for determining whether a trial court’s statements to the jury lowered the prosecution’s burden of proof was one of function: an appellate court must ask whether there is a reasonable likelihood the jury understood the court’s statements, in the context of the instructions as a whole and the trial record, to allow a conviction based on a standard lower than beyond a reasonable doubt. "In this way, statements made to the venire during voir dire can, in context, have the effect of instructing the jury on the law to be applied, whether or not such statements can be characterized as formal 'instructions,' and other facts and circumstances of the trial may well inform the question of how the jury would reasonably have understood such statements." Applying this standard to the specific facts of this case, the Supreme Court found it was "reasonably likely" that the jury understood the court’s statements to allow a conviction on a standard lower than beyond a reasonable doubt, which constituted structural error. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the division below and remanded for further proceedings. View "Tibbels v. Colorado" on Justia Law

The State charged Kevin Viburg with driving under the influence with three or more prior alcohol-related traffic offenses (i.e., felony DUI). Prior to trial, Viburg moved to treat his prior convictions as an element of the crime, which would require the jury to find them beyond a reasonable doubt. The court denied the motion, ruling that Viburg’s prior convictions were a sentence enhancer that needed only to be proved by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing after a trial on the merits. As a result, evidence of his prior convictions was not introduced to the jury; instead, at trial, the court instructed the jury only on the elements of misdemeanor DUI. The jury then found Viburg guilty of misdemeanor DUI. Subsequently, at a post-conviction hearing, the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Viburg had three prior alcohol-related traffic offenses, and it entered a conviction for felony DUI. The court of appeald reversed, holding that prior convictions were an element of felony DUI, meaning they had to be presented to the jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The division further stated that if the prosecution sought retrial and Viburg raised a double jeopardy defense, the trial court had to rule on the defense; it declined to express an opinion on the merits of the defense. The issue before the Colorado Supreme Court in this case was whether the prior convictions here were a sentence enhancer or an element of the offense. While the State's petition was pending, the Supreme Court issued Linnebur v. Colorado, 476 P.3d 734 (2020), which mirrored the Viburg appellate court's analysis deeming prior convictions to be an element of felony DUI. However, Linnbebur left open the question of whether double jeopardy barred retrial of the felony DUI charge. Here, the Supreme Court held double jeopardy did not bar retrial because the defendant was not previously acquitted of felony DUI. View "In re Viburg v. Colorado" on Justia Law