Justia Colorado Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case revolves around Taunia Marie Whiteaker, who was convicted of second degree burglary, first degree criminal trespass, third degree assault, and harassment following a physical altercation at her mother-in-law's house. Whiteaker appealed her conviction, arguing that the district court erred by failing to merge her conviction for first degree criminal trespass into her conviction for second degree burglary.The Colorado Court of Appeals rejected Whiteaker's argument, relying on a previous ruling that first degree criminal trespass is not a lesser included offense of second degree burglary. The court reasoned that even though subsequent opinions cast doubt on the previous ruling, it was the prerogative of the Supreme Court alone to overrule its cases. One judge disagreed, believing that a recent opinion had abrogated the previous ruling, but agreed that both convictions should survive because the district court's error in failing to merge the two offenses was not plain.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The court agreed with Whiteaker that first degree criminal trespass is a lesser included offense of second degree burglary, and that her overlapping convictions violated the double jeopardy clauses of the federal and state constitutions. The court held that double jeopardy sentencing errors require automatic reversal even when the error isn't obvious to the district court. Therefore, Whiteaker's convictions for trespass and burglary merge. The court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals to instruct the district court to amend the mittimus to reflect the merger of Whiteaker's conviction for first degree criminal trespass into her conviction for second degree burglary. View "Whiteaker v. People" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute over the dissolution of a marriage between Barbara Henderson Green and Jeffry Howard Green. The couple was married in Connecticut in 1982 and lived in Nebraska for most of their marriage. In 2018, Mrs. Green moved to Colorado to assist their pregnant daughter, while Mr. Green remained in Nebraska. The Greens purchased two houses in Denver, one for themselves and one for their daughter. Mr. Green financially supported Mrs. Green from Nebraska and listed one of the Denver houses as an asset on his personal financial statements. In 2021, Mr. Green took out a loan secured by a mortgage on their Denver house, stating that his Nebraska home was his former residence and the Denver house was his primary residence. However, he continued to live in Nebraska. In 2022, both Mr. and Mrs. Green filed for divorce in separate jurisdictions—Mrs. Green in Colorado and Mr. Green in Nebraska.The Colorado trial court found that Mr. Green had the requisite minimum contacts to be subject to general personal jurisdiction in Colorado. This decision was largely based on Mr. Green's assertion that the Denver house was his primary residence when he applied for a loan. The court concluded that Mr. Green's continuing financial obligations in Colorado meant that he could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there, and thus it denied his motion to dismiss.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado reviewed the case and held that for a court to exercise general personal jurisdiction over an individual, the individual must be domiciled within the state. The court found that Mr. Green was not domiciled in Colorado and therefore was not subject to general personal jurisdiction there. The court made the rule to show cause absolute and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "In re the Marriage of Green" on Justia Law

In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff, Susan Ann Scholle, acting as the personal representative for the Estate of Daniel B. Scholle, sued the defendants, Edward Ehrichs, M.D.; Michael Rauzzino, M.D.; and HCA-HealthONE, LLC. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' negligence during a back surgery led to severe complications, including cardiac arrest, infection, kidney injuries, stroke, and the need for multiple additional surgeries. The jury found the defendants negligent and awarded the plaintiff over $9 million in economic damages.The defendants argued that the damages should be capped at $1 million, as per the Health Care Availability Act (HCAA). The trial court, however, found good cause to exceed the cap, citing the severity of the plaintiff's injuries, the financial burden on his family, and the unfairness of limiting the damages due to the catastrophic outcome of the surgery.On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding that the trial court erred by not considering the plaintiff's insurance contract liabilities in its good cause analysis. The court reasoned that the plaintiff's insurers had waived their subrogation rights, meaning the plaintiff was not responsible for repaying the $4.1 million billed by the hospital.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado reversed the appellate court's decision, holding that the contract exception to the collateral source statute prohibits a trial court from considering a plaintiff's insurance contract liabilities in determining whether good cause exists to exceed the HCAA's damages cap. The court remanded the case for the trial court to recalculate interest and enter judgment accordingly. View "Scholle v. Ehrichs" on Justia Law

The case involves Glen Gary Montoya, who was arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence (DUI). After initially agreeing to a blood test, Montoya later refused. However, after the nurse left, he changed his mind and requested to take the test. The test was not conducted. At trial, the prosecution sought to use Montoya’s refusal as evidence of consciousness of guilt. Montoya was found guilty of DUI and careless driving.The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that if a criminal court determines that a driver refused testing, that determination must be based on the law of refusal that has developed in the administrative, license-revocation context. The court also concluded that if the prosecutor seeks to use as evidence a defendant’s refusal of a chemical test, but the defendant disputes refusal, the entire circumstances surrounding the defendant’s test-taking must be submitted for the jury’s consideration. The court reversed Montoya’s DUI conviction and remanded for a new trial.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado disagreed with the lower court's interpretation of the law of refusal. The Supreme Court held that criminal DUI trials are governed by the same evidentiary rules as any other criminal trial. Therefore, criminal courts are not bound by the law of refusal that governs administrative, license-revocation hearings. The court also concluded that the district court erred by admitting evidence of Montoya's refusal to submit to testing and excluding evidence of his subsequent request for testing. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the decision of the lower court, remanding the case for a new trial. View "People v. Montoya" on Justia Law

In November 2015, Mark Kinslow hit Daniala Mohammadi with his car while she was riding her bicycle. Mohammadi, who was a minor at the time of the accident, sued Kinslow in December 2019, more than two years but less than three years after she turned eighteen. Kinslow moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the statute of limitations had expired two years after Mohammadi’s eighteenth birthday. Mohammadi countered that the usual three-year statute of limitations for motor vehicle accidents had not started to run until her eighteenth birthday.The trial court granted Kinslow’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Mohammadi was required to bring her claim either within three years of the incident, or within two years after she turned eighteen. The court of appeals reversed this decision, agreeing with Mohammadi and concluding that it was bound by decisions of the Supreme Court of Colorado providing that statutes of limitations are “tolled” for claims by a minor plaintiff until the minor turns eighteen.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado reversed the court of appeals' decision. The court concluded that the plain language of section 13-81-103(1)(c), C.R.S. (2023), gives a plaintiff who turns eighteen within the three-year limitation period for a motor vehicle accident a statute of limitations that is the longer of (1) the full three years normally accorded an accident victim, or (2) two years from their eighteenth birthday. For Mohammadi, this meant that she was required to bring her claim by January 1, 2019—two years after she turned eighteen. Because her suit was filed after that date, it was untimely. The court remanded the case with instructions to dismiss. View "Kinslow v. Mohammadi" on Justia Law

Brandon Mason Bohler was charged with first-degree murder after stabbing his roommate to death. He pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. During his arrest, Bohler made statements to the police which were later suppressed by the district court. The court ruled that Bohler was in custody for Miranda purposes when he made the statements, and thus, they should have been preceded by a Miranda warning.The People of the State of Colorado appealed the district court's decision to suppress Bohler's statements. They argued that Bohler was not in custody when he made the statements, and therefore, a Miranda warning was not required. The appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado reversed the district court's decision. The court determined that Bohler was not in custody when he made the statements. The court reasoned that a reasonable person in Bohler's position would not have believed himself to be deprived of freedom of action to the degree associated with a formal arrest. Therefore, the court concluded that the district court erred in suppressing Bohler's statements, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "People v. Brandon Bohler" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado affirmed a lower court's restitution order, ruling that the defendant was the proximate cause of the victim's pecuniary loss. The defendant, Arnold Roman Martinez, had stolen a bicycle and was pursued by the bicycle's owner in a car. The car was damaged when the owner cut off Martinez, causing him to crash into the car. The district court ordered Martinez to pay over $2,000 in restitution for the damage to the car.On appeal, Martinez challenged the order, asserting that he did not proximately cause the damage to the car. The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado ruled that the standard for reviewing a district court's determination of proximate cause for criminal restitution is clear error, not the abuse-of-discretion standard used by the lower court. The Supreme Court found that the district court did not clearly err in determining that Martinez's theft was the proximate cause of the damage to the car. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the restitution order on different grounds. View "Martinez v. People" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado reviewed a case involving an insurance dispute over uninsured/underinsured motorist ("UM/UIM") benefits in a specialty antique/classic-car policy. The plaintiff, Beverly Hughes, was injured while driving a vehicle owned by her employer. Hughes was insured by two automobile insurance policies: one standard policy issued by Travelers Insurance covering her regular-use vehicles and a specialty policy issued by Essentia Insurance Company covering her antique/classic cars. She sought to recover underinsured motorist benefits from both policies.The court held that a specialty antique/classic-car policy that requires an insured to have a regular-use vehicle and to insure it through a standard policy that provides UM/UIM coverage may properly limit its own UM/UIM coverage to the use of any antique/classic car covered under the specialty policy. The court reasoned that an adjunctive antique/classic-car policy, which excludes UM/UIM benefits with respect to situations involving a regular-use vehicle but works in tandem with a standard regular-use-vehicle policy that provides UM/UIM coverage, satisfies both the language of section 10-4-609, C.R.S. (2023), and the public policy goals underpinning the statute. Thus, the court concluded that the regular-use-vehicle exclusion in the UM/UIM provision of Essentia's specialty policy is valid and enforceable under Colorado law. As a result, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstated the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Essentia. View "Essentia Insurance Company, v. Hughes" on Justia Law

A high school student, identified as J.G., was required to undergo daily searches for weapons as part of a safety plan after committing firearm-related offenses. However, when J.G. returned to school for his tenth-grade year, he was not searched on the first two days. On his third day, school administrators discovered a loaded handgun in his backpack and he was arrested and charged with weapons-related offenses. J.G. moved to suppress evidence of the handgun, arguing that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights as the safety plan was no longer in effect at the time of the search. His motion was denied by the juvenile court which found that the safety plan, with its requirement for daily searches, was still in place when the handgun was found.The Supreme Court of the State of Colorado affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that a search of a student conducted on school grounds in accordance with an individualized, weapons-related safety plan is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that J.G.'s behavior did not create individualized reasonable suspicion on the day he was searched. However, the presence or absence of individualized suspicion is not the full extent of the inception prong of the reasonableness test. The court held that the search of J.G.’s backpack was reasonable at its inception because it was carried out in conformity with a formal safety plan and it was appropriately limited in its scope. The court also found that J.G. had sufficient notice of the search requirement to diminish his expectation of privacy in his backpack. View "People In re J.G." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Colorado examined the case of Carlos Ray Maes, who was charged with six felony counts. A magistrate presided over the preliminary hearing and found that probable cause existed for each of the eligible counts. The case was then bound over to the district court. Nearly three months later, Maes petitioned the district court for a review of the magistrate's probable-cause determination, but the district court declined, arguing that it did not have jurisdiction to review such a determination and that Maes's petition was not timely.The Supreme Court of Colorado held that a magistrate's finding of probable cause after a preliminary hearing is a "final order or judgment" under the Colorado Rules for Magistrates and is therefore reviewable by a district court. Further, the court held that the time limit for petitioning for district court review of a magistrate's final order or judgment begins when the magistrate memorializes that determination in writing. Consequently, the court concluded that Maes's petition was timely filed. The court made the rule to show cause absolute and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "People v. Maes" on Justia Law