Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Aundre Moore was charged with first degree murder for the shooting death of Jamaica McClain. Moore pleaded not guilty and was awaiting trial. He claimed he acted in self-defense, and he intended to introduce evidence of his pre-existing mental illness to help show why he subjectively believed he was in imminent danger and needed to use deadly force to repel McClain. The prosecution moved to exclude evidence of Moore’s mental condition, arguing that it was inadmissible unless he plead not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGRI”), an affirmative defense that Moore has said he doesn’t plan to invoke. The district court denied the prosecution’s motion, reasoning that Moore’s stated purpose in offering the mental condition evidence was to prove the subjective belief component of his self-defense claim, not to prove insanity. Therefore, the court ruled that it would allow, without an insanity plea, expert testimony by a psychologist and a forensic psychiatrist who examined Moore, so long as their testimony otherwise conformed to the rules of evidence. The prosecution petitioned for interlocutory review by the Colorado Supreme Court, which then concluded that absent an insanity plea, a trial court must exclude any evidence that is probative of insanity, as that term has been defined by the legislature, irrespective of the ostensible purpose for which it was offered. “This means that evidence of less-severe mental illness remains admissible, absent an insanity plea, if it otherwise conforms to the statutory requirements and the rules of evidence. The court must parse any proffered mental condition evidence, line by line if necessary, to distinguish what is probative of insanity under this exacting definition from what is not.” View "Colorado v. Moore" on Justia Law

Delano Medina sought review of the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition by a district court magistrate. Because a district court magistrate was authorized to rule on a habeas corpus petition only when the parties consent to proceeding before the magistrate and Medina did not so consent here, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded the dismissal order was entered without authority. Accordingly, the Court reversed that order, and remanded the case to the district court with instructions to assign the petition to a district court judge for further proceedings. View "Medina v. Williams" on Justia Law

Alma Vidauri was convicted of one count of theft and three counts of forgery in connection with filings she made with the Garfield County, Colorado Department of Human Services (“Department”) between 2009 and 2016 for medical assistance benefits. A division of the court of appeals concluded that the evidence was insufficient because the prosecution had not shown the difference in value between the total amount of certain public benefits Vidauri received and the amount for which she might have been eligible had she accurately reported her household income. Therefore, the division reversed the trial court and entered judgment for the lowest level of theft, a class 1 petty offense. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the division, finding the applicable theft statute placed no burden on the prosecution to establish that Vidauri would have been ineligible for any of the benefits she received. "Because an applicant is not entitled to, and so has no legally cognizable interest in, any benefits until she has submitted accurate information demonstrating as much, we conclude that all the benefits Vidauri received by submitting false information were obtained by deception. Therefore, the original judgment of conviction for a class 4 felony must be reinstated." View "Colorado v. Vidauri" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on whether the court of appeals was correct in holding the trial court improperly admitted lay opinion testimony and, therefore, reversed Justine Murphy’s convictions for distributing methamphetamine and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and remanded the case for a new trial. Specifically, the Court considered whether the trial court properly admitted as lay opinion a police officer’s testimony regarding the conclusions he drew from his observations of a witness’s body language. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the police officer’s testimony regarding the witness’s body language constituted lay opinion testimony. Furthermore, the Court concluded the officer did not improperly comment on the credibility of another witness. Accordingly, the officer’s testimony was properly admitted, the appellate court's judgment was reversed, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. View "Colorado v. Murphy" on Justia Law

William Scholle worked for United Airlines, Inc., driving luggage tugs from the terminal to waiting planes, loading or unloading the bags, and returning to the terminal. In June 2012, Scholle was stopped at a stop sign on a return trip to the terminal when he was rear-ended by Daniel Moody, an employee of Delta Air Lines, Inc. Scholle applied for and received workers’ compensation insurance benefits from United, a self-insured employer. United covered all medical expenses resulting from Scholle’s on-the-job injuries, as well as a portion of his lost wages. Scholle’s medical providers produced bills for the services he received that reflected costs in excess of what is permitted by the workers’ compensation fee schedule, though they never tried to collect amounts beyond those permitted by statute. United exercised its subrogation right and sued Delta and Moody to recover the payments it made to and on behalf of Scholle. Scholle separately sued Delta and Moody for negligence, seeking to recover compensation for damages as a result of the collision. Eventually, Delta settled United’s subrogation claim; Scholle’s claims against Moody were later dismissed, leaving only Scholle and Delta as parties. Delta admitted liability for the accident, and the case went to trial on damages. In pretrial motions in limine, Scholle argued that the collateral source rule should preclude Delta from admitting evidence of the amount paid by Scholle’s workers’ compensation insurance to cover the medical expenses arising from his injuries. Instead, Scholle contended, the higher amounts billed by his medical providers reflected the true reasonable value of the medical services provided to him and should have been admissible at trial. The trial court disagreed, reasoning that when Delta settled with United, it effectively paid Scholle’s medical expenses, such that amounts paid for those expenses were no longer payments by a collateral source. The court further noted that, under the workers’ compensation statute, any amount billed for medical treatment in excess of the statutory fee schedule was “unlawful,” “void,” and “unenforceable.” The Colorado Supreme Court concluded that when, as here, a workers’ compensation insurer settles its subrogation claim for reimbursement of medical expenses with a third-party tortfeasor, the injured employee’s claim for past medical expenses is extinguished completely. "Because the injured employee need not present evidence of either billed or paid medical expenses in the absence of a viable claim for such expenses, the collateral source rule is not implicated under these circumstances. The court of appeals therefore erred in remanding for a new trial on medical expenses based on a perceived misapplication of that rule." View "Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Scholle" on Justia Law

In December 2015, Joseph Gill was injured in an on-the-job car accident when he was struck by a truck owned by Swift Transportation Company, LLC (“Swift”), driven by Christopher Waltz. As a result of the injuries he suffered in the accident, Gill obtained workers’ compensation benefits through Pinnacol Assurance (“Pinnacol”) to cover his medical expenses. Gill’s medical providers produced bills totaling $627,809.76 for the services he received. However, because Colorado’s workers’ compensation scheme caps the amount that medical providers can charge, Pinnacol satisfied all of Gill’s past medical expenses for significantly less. Pinnacol then pursued, and ultimately settled, its subrogation claim with Swift. Gill and his wife subsequently sued Swift and Waltz for damages resulting from the accident, and the case was removed from state court to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. Swift sought partial summary judgment , relying on case law which, in applying Colorado’s workers’ compensation law, concluded that an injured employee lacked standing to pursue damages for services that were covered by workers’ compensation after the insurer had settled its subrogated claims with the third-party tortfeasor. While the federal district court was considering Swift’s motion, the Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Scholle v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 2019 COA 81M, in which a divided court disagreed with the case law. Instead, it determined that a plaintiff-employee could seek damages for medical services covered by workers’ compensation insurance if the billed amounts were higher than the paid amounts, even after the insurer had settled its subrogation claim. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, finding that a settlement between a workers’ compensation insurer and a third-party tortfeasor for all past medical expenses paid as a result of an on-the-job injury extinguished the plaintiff-employee’s claim to recover damages for those past medical expenses from the third-party tortfeasor. "As a result, while Joseph Gill may still pursue his claims for noneconomic damages and any economic damages not covered by his workers’ compensation insurer, he no longer has any claim to recover economic damages based on services paid for by workers’ compensation. There is consequently no reason to present evidence of either the amounts billed or the amounts paid for those services, and the collateral source rule is not implicated in this case." View "Gill v. Waltz" on Justia Law

After dating for a few weeks, Vincent Compos and his ex-girlfriend ended their relationship; the ex-girlfriend obtained a protection order prohibiting Compos from contacting her. Shortly after the relationship ended, Compos appeared at a Super Bowl party that the ex-girlfriend and her children were also attending. Later that evening, Compos arrived uninvited at the ex-girlfriend’s home and let himself inside. The two began arguing, and during this argument, Compos threatened to kill the ex-girlfriend and her family. Compos then pulled out a gun and pointed it at the ex-girlfriend and her son. The ex-girlfriend called police; police were given permission to enter her house. There, police found Compos , and took him into custody. One of the officers spoke with Compos outside a patrol car. The officer asked Compos his name, to which Compos falsely responded “John Rocha” and provided a birthdate. Although the officer was aware of at least one protection order restricting Compos’s activities, and although the officer also knew that Compos was on bond, he did not provide Miranda warnings before asking Compos his name. The issues presented for the Colorado Supreme Court were: (1) whether Compos’s Miranda rights were violated when, after taking him into custody but prior to providing him with Miranda warnings, the police asked him his name; and (2) whether the division below erred in establishing a “new crime exception” to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and applying it here. The Supreme Court concluded the question as to Compos’s name amounted to a custodial interrogation, but, on the facts presented here, Compos’s response was admissible at trial because the question was akin to the type of routine booking question that has been deemed to be excepted from Miranda’s reach. For this reason, the Court affirmed the judgment of the division below, albeit on other grounds, and in light of this determination, the Court did not consider, and thus vacated, the portion of the division’s judgment establishing, sua sponte, a new crime exception to Miranda. View "Compos v. Colorado" on Justia Law

Two detectives questioned defendant Jose Padilla about his involvement in a potential sexual assault. In response, Padilla stated that he did not have sex with the victim, J.M., and that J.M. was extremely intoxicated on the night in question. He later moved to suppress these statements, arguing they were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). The district court agreed and granted the motion to suppress, finding that Padilla was subjected to custodial interrogation without the required warnings. The State filed this interlocutory appeal, challenging the district court’s order. Because the Colorado Supreme Court concluded Padilla was not in custody for Miranda purposes, it reversed the portion of the district court’s order suppressing the statements, and remanded this case for further proceedings. View "Colorado v. Padilla" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on whether uploading the text of a bill to multiple computers and using automated software to simultaneously give voice to different portions of the bill at a speed of about 650 words per minute, complied with the the Colorado Constitution, article V, section 22: “Every bill shall be read by title when introduced, and at length on two different days in each house; provided, however, any reading at length may be dispensed with upon unanimous consent of the members present.” The Colorado Supreme Court concluded the software solution was not constitutional: "There are unquestionably different ways by which the legislature may comply with the reading requirement. But the cacophony generated by the computers here isn’t one of them. And while we have no business dictating the specifics of how the legislature might comply with the reading requirement, it is our prerogative and responsibility to declare that the legislature did not comply with that requirement in this case." The Court concurred with the district court's determination that the "unintelligible" sounds produced by the computers did not fulfill the reading requirement. But the Court affirmed in part and reversed in part because it concluded it was not within the district court's domain to dictate the form or manner by which the legislature may comply with the reading requirement. "By prescribing how the legislature must comply with the reading requirement, the district court trespassed upon the separation-of-powers tenet so essential to our constitutional system of government." View "Markwell v. Cooke" on Justia Law

In 2019, several parole officers approached a home that they believed was the residence of Susan Damico. Damico was a parolee whose parole agreement allowed officers to search “her person, residence, and/or vehicle” without a warrant as a condition of parole. When the officers arrived at the home, they found Damico in the front yard getting into her car. The officers identified themselves, informed Damico that they were conducting a parole visit, obtained a house key from her, and asked whether there was anyone inside the home. Damico told the officers that defendant-appellant Aaron Peluso was inside in bed. While the other officers entered the home, Damico's parole officer, Brook Hathaway, remained outside with Damico for several minutes. The officers who first entered the home found Peluso in bed and informed him of the purpose of their visit. After Peluso got dressed and out of bed, officers searched the room and found methamphetamine, THC, glass pipes, rolling papers, and a digital scale. Officers arrested Peluso and then searched his wallet, which contained additional methamphetamine. During the drive to jail, Peluso told officers that he had been using methamphetamine. Peluso was subsequently charged with possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. He moved to suppress both the evidence recovered from his home and the statements he made after his arrest, arguing that the warrantless search of his home violated his Fourth Amendment rights. At the hearing, the trial court granted the motion to suppress, concluding that Damico did not actually live at Peluso's home at the time of the search, and Hathaway could have done more to verify Damico's address. The court further found that there was insufficient evidence to determine whether Peluso might have objected to the search once the officers entered his home. The State moved for reconsideration, arguing that the court incorrectly analyzed Damico’s actual, not apparent, authority to consent to the search. The Colorado Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in suppressing the evidence and reversed the order. "Because parole officers reasonably believed Damico had authority to consent to a search of Peluso’s residence, her apparent authority was sufficient to validate the warrantless search, and Peluso’s motion to suppress should have been denied." View "Colorado v. Peluso" on Justia Law