November 23, 2017

Archives for June 17, 2014

Colorado Supreme Court: Announcement Sheet, 6/16/2014

On Monday, June 16, 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court issued six published opinions.

Gessler v. Colorado Common Cause

People v. DeAtley

Kelly v. Haralampopoulos

People v. Storlie

People v. Griffin

Cain v. People

Summaries of these cases are forthcoming, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Neither State Judicial nor the Colorado Bar Association provides case summaries for unpublished appellate opinions. The case announcement sheet is available here.

 

Colorado Supreme Court: Secretary of State Exceeded Rulemaking Authority in Expanding Contribution Limits

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Gessler v. Colorado Common Cause on Monday, June 16, 2014.

Issue Committees—Colo. Const. art. XXVIII, § 2(10)(a)(II)—CRS § 1-45-108(1)(a)(I)—8 CCR § 1505-6:4.1.

The Supreme Court held that Sampson v. Buescher, 625 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2010), did not facially invalidate either the $200 contribution and expenditure threshold for issue committees under art. XXVIII, § 2(10)(a)(II) of the Colorado Constitution or the retrospective reporting requirement under CRS § 1-45-108(1)(a)(I) of the Fair Campaign Practices Act. The Court further held that Secretary of State Rule 4.1., 8 Colo. Code Regs. § 1505-6:4.1 (2013), promulgated by the Secretary of State after Sampson was decided, conflicts with both the $200 threshold in article XXVIII and the retrospective reporting requirement in CRS § 1-45-108(1)(a)(I). Because the Secretary of State does not have authority to promulgate rules that conflict with other provisions of law, the Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals and set aside Rule 4.1.

Summary and full case available here.

Colorado Supreme Court: CRE 803(4) Allows Statements to Physician for Diagnosis or Treatment of Medical Condition So Statements Properly Admitted

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kelly v. Haralampopoulos on Monday, June 16, 2014.

Evidence—Statements Made for Purposes of Medical Diagnosis or Treatment.

Respondent suffered a cardiac arrest during a fine-needle aspiration biopsy. He failed to respond to routine resuscitation efforts, and the resulting brain injury left him in a vegetative state. The trial court held that statements made to a physician by a family friend, asking whether respondent’s cocaine use may have contributed to his heart attack and failure to respond to resuscitation efforts, were admissible under CRE 803(4). The court of appeals reversed, finding that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of respondent’s cocaine use.

The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals erred in limiting the scope of CRE 803(4) to statements made for the purpose of prospective treatment. The Rule’s plain language applies to “diagnosis or treatment.” Although the term “treatment” has a prospective focus, the term “diagnosis” does not. Instead, diagnosis focuses on the cause of a patient’s medical condition, and may or may not involve subsequent treatment. Here, statements made by the family friend were made for the purpose of discovering the cause of respondent’s cardiac arrest and failure to react to normal resuscitation efforts, and were thus admissible under CRE 803(4). Accordingly, the court of appeals’ judgment was reversed.

Summary and full case available here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Trial Court Unreasonably Denied Defense Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw Despite Irreconcilable Conflict of Interest

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re People v. DeAtley on Monday, June 16, 2014.

CAR 21 Original Proceeding in Criminal Case—Defense Counsel Motion to Withdraw—Implied Waiver of the Right to Counsel—Arguello Advisement.

The Supreme Court held that the trial court unreasonably and unfairly determined that the attorneys in this case could effectively represent defendant, despite his discharge of them and the trial court’s previous finding that a conflict of interest existed between defense counsel and defendant due to defendant’s filing of a malpractice and breach of contract lawsuit against defense counsel. After concluding that defendant was engaging in trial-delaying conduct, the trial court chose the wrong remedy and thereby abused its discretion. The trial court’s finding that the attorneys could balance their personal interests implicated by defendant’s actions with their obligation to represent him was arbitrary, unreasonable, and unfair given the trial court’s first finding that a conflict existed. It should have granted the motion to withdraw and proceeded in accordance with Crim.P. 44(a), advising defendant that he had the obligation to hire other counsel, request the appointment of counsel by the court, or elect to represent himself. In view of defendant’s delay-causing conduct, the trial court should have given him an Arguello advisement, explaining the consequences of engaging in trial-delaying conduct, which can result in an implied waiver of the right to counsel, and explaining the risks of proceeding without counsel. [See People v. Arguello, 772 P.2d 87, 92–94 (Colo. 1989)]. The Court reversed the trial court’s denial of the motion to withdraw and made the rule absolute.

Summary and full case available here.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 6/16/2014

On Monday, June 16, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued no published opinion and three unpublished opinions.

United States v. Gonzales

Medicine Blanket v. Miller

Maranville v. Utah Valley University

Case summaries are not provided for unpublished opinions. However, published opinions are summarized and provided by Legal Connection.