Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involves Robert Keith Ray, who was charged with multiple offenses related to the murders of Javad Marshall-Fields and Vivian Wolfe in a drive-by shooting. Marshall-Fields was set to testify against Ray in a separate shooting incident at Lowry Park, where Ray and his associate, Sir Mario Owens, were involved. Ray was convicted of nearly all charges related to the Dayton Street shooting and was initially sentenced to death. However, after Colorado abolished the death penalty, the Governor commuted Ray's sentence to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP).The Arapahoe County District Court entered the judgment of conviction and sentenced Ray to death, which was later commuted to LWOP. Ray appealed his convictions and sentence directly to the Colorado Supreme Court, challenging several evidentiary rulings, prosecutorial misconduct, and the constitutionality of his LWOP sentence. He also alleged juror misconduct and sought to subpoena jurors to investigate these claims.The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed Ray's appeal and found that while the district court made some errors in admitting certain evidence and that some of the prosecution's comments were improper, none of these errors warranted reversal. The court concluded that the district court properly denied inquiry into alleged juror misconduct under CRE 606(b) and upheld the constitutionality of Ray's LWOP sentence. The court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the commuted sentence. View "People v. Ray" on Justia Law

Isaiah Ismael Rios was charged with multiple counts, including first-degree murder, related to a series of crimes over eighteen days. His trial, initially set for July 2020, was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The trial court, following public health guidelines, excluded all spectators from the physical courtroom, providing virtual access instead. Rios objected, arguing this violated his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The trial proceeded with these restrictions, and Rios was convicted.The Colorado Court of Appeals reviewed the case and determined that the exclusion of the public from the courtroom constituted a nontrivial partial closure. However, it concluded that Rios's right to a public trial was not violated because the closure was justified under the Supreme Court's standard in Waller v. Georgia. The court found that the closure was warranted due to the public health crisis, was no broader than necessary, and that reasonable alternatives were considered.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and held that virtual access alone does not satisfy the Sixth Amendment right to a public trial. The court determined that a courtroom closure occurred but concluded that the closure did not violate Rios's right to a public trial. The court found that the closure was justified under the Waller factors due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals. View "Rios v. People" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the sale of real property. Patricia Ann Scott, the seller, previously sued real estate agent Kaylee Schnelle for professional negligence, alleging mishandling of the sale. Schnelle's motions for summary judgment and directed verdict were denied, and the jury found in her favor. Subsequently, Schnelle filed a malicious prosecution claim against Scott and her attorneys, arguing they lacked probable cause and conspired against her. The defendants moved to dismiss, citing the prior denials as evidence of probable cause.The district court denied the motion to dismiss, stating that the previous denials were factors to consider but did not conclusively establish probable cause. The court found Schnelle's allegations sufficient to support her claim. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, agreeing that the denials did not create a rebuttable presumption of probable cause.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case to determine if such denials should create a rebuttable presumption of probable cause. The court concluded that while the denials are factors in the probable cause analysis, they do not create a rebuttable presumption. The court emphasized the need for a careful, case-by-case analysis rather than a bright-line rule. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that the denials of summary judgment and directed verdict motions do not establish probable cause as a matter of law. View "Cantafio v. Schnelle" on Justia Law

Krista Dozier slipped and fell on an unmarked puddle of water in the Jefferson County courthouse. She filed a tort action against Jefferson County, which moved to dismiss the case, claiming immunity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA). Dozier argued that the spill was a "dangerous condition" of a public building, an exception to CGIA immunity. The district court found the County's response to the spill reasonable and dismissed Dozier's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the reasonableness of the County's response was irrelevant to jurisdiction and that the County had waived CGIA immunity under the dangerous-condition exception.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and reversed the judgment of the court of appeals. The court held that when disputed jurisdictional facts are inextricably intertwined with the merits, a plaintiff must demonstrate a likelihood of the existence of the facts necessary to establish a waiver of CGIA immunity. Additionally, the plaintiff must show that a public entity's negligent act or omission proximately caused the condition in question for the dangerous-condition exception to apply. The district court had found the County's response to the spill reasonable, concluding that Dozier failed to establish the spill as a "dangerous condition" and thus lacked jurisdiction over her claims.The Supreme Court of Colorado reinstated the district court's order dismissing Dozier's complaint, emphasizing that the plaintiff must demonstrate a likelihood that the public entity's negligent act or omission proximately caused the dangerous condition to establish a waiver of CGIA immunity. View "Jefferson Cnty. v. Dozier" on Justia Law

Brandon and Amanda Sullivan, the biological parents of three young children, passed away, leaving the children in the care of Amanda's parents, Suzanne and August Nicolas. The Nicolases were appointed as the children's emergency and then permanent guardians. Subsequently, they adopted the children. After the adoption, Brandon's parents, Jayne Mecque and Daniel Francis Sullivan, sought and were granted grandparent visitation rights. The Nicolases later moved to vacate this visitation order, arguing that the Sullivans lacked standing to seek visitation post-adoption.The domestic relations court denied the Nicolases' motion, finding that the Sullivans had standing to seek grandparent visitation. The Nicolases appealed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the Sullivans retained their standing to seek visitation despite the adoption. The Nicolases then sought review from the Supreme Court of Colorado.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and determined that under section 19-1-103(70)(a), C.R.S. (2021), grandparent standing is limited to those who are currently the parents of a child's father or mother. The court held that following an adoption, the parents of a child's former mother or father are no longer considered "grandparents" under the statute. Therefore, the Sullivans lacked standing to seek grandparent visitation after the Nicolases adopted the children. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "In re The Parental Responsibilities Concerning Children K.M.S." on Justia Law

Adetayo Sotade, a defendant in a criminal case in Douglas County, Colorado, is charged with second-degree kidnapping, sexual assault, and unlawful sexual contact. During the investigation, the Colorado Bureau of Investigations (CBI) conducted forensic testing, and it was later discovered that a CBI DNA analyst, Yvonne "Missy" Woods, had tampered with DNA testing in numerous cases. Sotade's defense team requested records related to Woods' misconduct from the CBI under the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act (CCJRA). The CBI provided some documents but withheld others, prompting Sotade to file an application in the Douglas County District Court to compel the CBI to release the records.The Douglas County District Court held a hearing and concluded it had ancillary jurisdiction to hear the case, despite the CBI's argument that the court lacked jurisdiction because the records were located in Jefferson County. The CBI then filed a petition with the Colorado Supreme Court, arguing that the CCJRA requires such applications to be filed in the district where the records are located and that ancillary jurisdiction was not applicable.The Colorado Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the plain language of the CCJRA requires that a show-cause hearing must take place in the district court where the records are located. The court held that ancillary jurisdiction is not available when a specific statutory provision applies. Therefore, the court made the order to show cause absolute, ruling that the Douglas County District Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the application and that it should have been filed in Jefferson County. View "People v. Sotade" on Justia Law

Ashley Hushen and Alexandra Weary, along with their mothers, reported allegations of sexual harassment by a classmate, Benjamin Gonzales, to their high school administrators. The school conducted a Title IX investigation, resulting in Benjamin's three-day suspension and subsequent juvenile charges for unlawful sexual contact. Benjamin was acquitted of all charges, and the school reopened the investigation, ultimately concluding that Benjamin had not violated school policies. The students involved felt traumatized by the process, and by the time the proceedings concluded, they had graduated.Benjamin later sued Ashley, Alexandra, and their mothers for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on statements made during the Title IX investigations. The defendants filed a special motion to dismiss under Colorado's anti-SLAPP statute, arguing that their statements were absolutely privileged as they were made during a quasi-judicial proceeding. Both the trial court and the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the Title IX proceedings were not quasi-judicial due to procedural shortcomings, allowing Benjamin's lawsuit to proceed.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and clarified that the determination of whether a proceeding is quasi-judicial is separate from whether it offers sufficient due process. The court held that a proceeding is quasi-judicial if it involves determining the interests, rights, or duties of specific individuals and applying current law or policy to past or present facts. The court concluded that the Title IX investigation met these criteria and was therefore quasi-judicial. Consequently, the statements made during the investigation were protected by absolute privilege, and the lawsuit against Ashley, Alexandra, and their mothers could not proceed. The court reversed the decision of the court of appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Hushen v. Gonzales" on Justia Law

A child, B.C.B., was born in a car where his parents were living. After being transported to a hospital, both B.C.B. and his mother tested positive for methamphetamine. The El Paso County Department of Human Services conducted a safety assessment and took temporary custody of B.C.B. due to the positive drug test. The Department filed a petition alleging that B.C.B. was dependent or neglected under Colorado law.The El Paso County District Court held an adjudicatory trial, where evidence was presented that B.C.B. had difficulty latching to breastfeed and exhibited symptoms potentially related to methamphetamine exposure. Three pediatricians testified about the potential long-term risks of methamphetamine exposure, although they could not definitively link the symptoms to the drug exposure. The jury found that B.C.B. was born affected by substance exposure and that his health or welfare was threatened by substance use. The trial court adjudicated B.C.B. as dependent or neglected and ordered continued custody with the Department.The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's adjudication, concluding that the Department had not provided sufficient evidence to show that B.C.B. was adversely affected by substance exposure at birth. The majority held that a positive drug test alone was insufficient to establish dependency or neglect under the amended statute.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and concluded that a positive drug test at birth satisfies the first prong of the statute, indicating that the child was affected by substance exposure. The Court also found that the Department provided sufficient evidence to show that B.C.B.'s health or welfare was threatened by substance use, either directly or due to the mother's inability to care for the child properly. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and upheld the jury's finding that B.C.B. was dependent or neglected. View "People ex rel. B.C.B. v. A.B." on Justia Law

Shaun Jeff Snow was charged with multiple offenses, including first-degree murder and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance. He entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to second-degree murder in exchange for the dismissal of other charges and a stipulated sentencing range of sixteen to twenty-four years. The plea agreement did not mention restitution. At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed a twenty-year prison sentence and deferred the issue of restitution for sixty days. Seventy-eight days later, the prosecution filed a motion for restitution, and 108 days after sentencing, the court entered a post-sentencing restitution order for $13,852.60.Snow did not appeal his conviction or sentence but later filed a motion to waive restitution, which the district court denied. Snow then appealed, arguing that his sentence was illegal under the precedent set by People v. Weeks. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the post-sentencing restitution order, concluding that Snow's Crim. P. 35(a) claim was an illegal manner claim and thus time-barred.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and held that the district court's deferral of the restitution issue in its entirety at sentencing was not authorized by law, making Snow's sentence illegal. The court concluded that the post-sentencing restitution order must be vacated. The court remanded the case with instructions to the district court to enter an order reflecting that Snow owes no restitution. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory requirements for restitution orders and ensuring timely and effective assessment of restitution. View "Snow v. People" on Justia Law

Ryan Wallace Bonde was sentenced to two concurrent, four-year community corrections sentences as part of a plea agreement. After successfully completing the residential portion, he was transferred to nonresidential status. However, following his arrest for new offenses, his nonresidential status was terminated, and he was resentenced to the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC). Bonde requested presentence confinement credit (PSCC) for the 355 days served during the nonresidential portion of his community corrections sentences, which the district court denied based on the precedent set in People v. Hoecher.The district court ruled that Bonde was not entitled to PSCC for time served on nonresidential status but could qualify for good time and earned time credit. Bonde was resentenced to two concurrent, four-year sentences in the CDOC, receiving PSCC for time served in jail and during the residential portion of his community corrections sentences, along with 153 days of earned time credit. Bonde appealed, arguing that the reasoning in Hoecher had been undermined by subsequent legislative amendments, which now support granting PSCC for time served on nonresidential status.The Colorado Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that it was bound by the express holding in Hoecher, which denies PSCC for time served during nonresidential community corrections sentences. The court noted that Bonde did not demonstrate that nonresidential offenders face liberty restraints that constitute "confinement" under the PSCC statute.The Supreme Court of Colorado affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, reaffirming the holding in Hoecher. The court concluded that nonresidential community corrections sentences do not qualify for PSCC, as the freedoms associated with nonresidential status are inconsistent with the notion of confinement under section 18-1.3-405. The court emphasized that any policy-based changes to grant PSCC for nonresidential community corrections sentences should be directed to the legislature. View "Bonde v. People" on Justia Law