October 19, 2017

Colorado Supreme Court: Unlawful Sexual Contact is Lesser Included Offense of Sexual Assault

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Page v. People on Monday, September 11, 2017.

Double Jeopardy—Lesser Included Offenses.

In this case, the supreme court considered whether unlawful sexual contact is a lesser included offense of sexual assault. Because establishing the elements of sexual assault by means of penetration necessarily establishes the elements of unlawful sexual contact, the Court concluded that unlawful sexual contact is a lesser included offense of sexual assault. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case with instructions to vacate defendant’s conviction for unlawful sexual contact.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Prospective Juror’s Silence Properly Construed as Rehabilitation

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Clemens on Monday, September 11, 2017.

Juror Rehabilitation—Voir Dire—Silence.

In this case, the Colorado Supreme Court considered whether a prospective juror’s silence in response to rehabilitative questioning constitutes evidence sufficient to support a trial court’s conclusion that the juror has been rehabilitated. The court concluded that it does when, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the context of that silence indicates that the juror will render an impartial verdict according to the law and the evidence submitted to the jury at the trial. The court further concluded that, applying this test, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defense counsel’s challenges for cause. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of appeals was reversed.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: No Rational Basis Existed in Evidence to Grant Lesser Included Offense Instruction Request

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Naranjo on Monday, September 11, 2017.

Criminal Law—Lesser Non-Included Offenses—Jury Instructions.

The supreme court reviewed the court of appeals’ opinion reversing defendant’s convictions for felony menacing on the ground that defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser non-included offense of disorderly conduct with a deadly weapon. Under the supreme court’s case law, a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on a lesser non-included offense where there exists a rational basis in the evidence to simultaneously acquit the defendant of the greater charged offense and convict the defendant of the lesser offense. Here, based on the evidence presented at trial, there was no rational basis for the jury to simultaneously acquit defendant of felony menacing and convict him of disorderly conduct. The court of appeals’ judgment was reversed.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Denial of Defendant’s Requested Lesser Included Offense Instruction Not Harmless Error

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Rock on Monday, September 11, 2017.

Criminal Law—Lesser Included Offenses.

The People sought review of the court of appeals’ judgment reversing Rock’s convictions for second degree burglary and theft. The trial court denied Rock’s request for an additional, lesser included offense instruction on second degree criminal trespass on the ground that second degree criminal trespass is not an included offense of second degree burglary. The supreme court affirmed the court of appeals’ reversal. The court held that (1) the district court erred in denying Rock her requested instruction on second degree criminal trespass on the ground that it was not a lesser included offense of the charged offense of second degree burglary, and (2) erroneously denying Rock’s requested instruction was not harmless with regard to either of her convictions.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Restitution Statute Does Not Require Prosecution’s Requested Specificity for Setoff

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Stanley on Thursday, September 7, 2017.

Traffic Accident—Unapportioned Settlement—Crime Victim Compensation Program—Restitution—Setoff—Burden of Proof.

Stanley’s automobile insurer, Geico Indemnity Co. (Geico), entered into a “Release in Full of All Claims” (release) with the victim and her husband. Under the settlement, Geico paid the victim $25,000 for all claims related to and stemming from the accident in exchange for a full and final release of all claims against Stanley and Geico. Thereafter, Stanley pleaded guilty to felony vehicular assault, driving under the influence, and careless driving. The prosecution filed a motion to impose restitution and attached a report from the Crime Victim Compensation Program (CVCP). It showed that the CVCP had paid the victim $30,000, the maximum amount allowable by statute, for pecuniary losses proximately caused by Stanley’s criminal conduct. The Court awarded Stanley a $25,000 setoff against restitution for the amount paid by Geico, and ordered him to pay the $5,000 net amount.

On appeal, the prosecution argued that Stanley should not receive a setoff for the settlement funds because the release was an unapportioned settlement that did not “earmark” the proceeds for the same expenses compensated by the CVCP, leaving open the possibility that the victim used the proceeds for losses not compensated by the CVCP. When a victim receives compensation from a civil settlement against a defendant, the defendant may request a setoff against restitution “to the extent of any money actually paid to the victim for the same damages.” For purposes of a setoff, however, the court cannot allocate proceeds from an unapportioned civil settlement agreement without “specific evidence that the settlement included particular categories of loss,” because in civil cases victims may recover both pecuniary losses covered by the restitution statute and other damages specifically excluded under the restitution statute. Because the information needed to determine whether a victim has been fully compensated or has received a double recovery is known only by the victim, once a defendant has shown that a civil settlement includes the same categories of losses or expenses as compensated by the CVCP and awarded as restitution, the defendant has met his burden of going forward, and the prosecution may then rebut the inference that a double recovery has occurred. Here, Stanley met his burden of proving a setoff, but the victim may have used some or all of the settlement proceeds for losses not compensated by the CVCP.

The order was affirmed, and the case was remanded to permit the prosecution to show that the victim did not receive a double recovery from the settlement proceeds and the CVCP payment.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure Amended in Rule Change 2017(08)

On Monday, September 11, 2017, the Colorado Supreme Court issued Rule Change 2017(08), amending Rules 4 and 9 of the Colorado Rules of Criminal Procedure. The rule change is effective immediately.

Rule 4 addresses warrant and summons issuance upon filing of a felony complaint. Rule 9 addresses warrant or summons issuance upon indictment or information. The changes to the two rules are similar. The amended rules generally address procedures for issuing warrants or summonses in criminal matters, changing phrasing in many instances but retaining the substance of the rules. The rules were also changed to update information to gender-neutral pronouns.

A redline and clean copy of Rule Change 2017(08) is available here. For all of the Colorado Supreme Court’s adopted and proposed rule changes, click here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Statute of Limitations Tolled While Defendant Incarcerated in Minnesota

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Butler on Thursday, September 7, 2017.

Sexual Assault—Child—Statute of Limitations—Tolling—Out-of-State.

In 1995, Butler was convicted in Colorado and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment for sexually assaulting a child. In 1999, the Colorado Department of Corrections (DOC) placed Butler in a Minnesota prison, where he served the remainder of his Colorado sentence until he was released in 2006. A month after his release, Butler attempted to contact L.W., prompting L.W. to report abuse he had allegedly suffered as a child between January 1992 and May 1995. Charges were then brought against Butler in the present case based on L.W.’s allegations of sexual assault, and he was convicted. Butler filed a Crim. P. 35(c) motion asserting that the charges were barred by the applicable 10-year statute of limitations. The postconviction court denied Butler’s motion based on tolling of Colorado’s limitations period while Butler was incarcerated and thus “absent from the state of Colorado.” Butler did not raise the statute of limitations argument on direct appeal.

The people initially contended that Butler was barred from pursuing his statute of limitations claim in a postconviction proceeding under the abuse of process rule. However, under an exception to the abuse of process rule, any claim that the sentencing court lacked subject matter jurisdiction may be pursued in a postconviction proceeding. Consequently, Butler’s claim was not barred.

On appeal, Butler contended that the postconviction court erred in ruling that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction for purposes of the statute of limitations’ tolling provision because he was absent from Colorado while he was incarcerated in Minnesota for his prior Colorado convictions. The Colorado Court of Appeals concluded that a defendant is “absent” from Colorado for statute of limitations purposes when he has been transferred by the DOC to an out-of-state facility to serve out the remainder of a Colorado sentence. Consequently, the applicable 10-year limitations period was tolled while Butler was in Minnesota. Additionally, under the circumstances here, the prosecution’s failure to plead Butler’s absence from the state did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to proceed.

The order was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Defendant Lacked Fixed Address and was Charged with Failure to Register as Sex Offender Under Incorrect Statute

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Jones on Thursday, September 7, 2017.

Sex Offender—Failure to Register—Evidence—Address—C.R.S. § 16-22-108(3)(i)—C.R.S. § 18-3-412.5(1)(g).

Jones was required to register as a sex offender. In 2011, he registered as a sex offender with the Aurora Police Department (Aurora P.D.) in Colorado. In August 2012, Jones was released from prison onto parole in an unrelated case, and he was given a voucher to stay at a particular motel in Aurora (and in Adams County). On August 12, 2012, Jones updated his sex offender registration with the Aurora P.D., listing the motel’s address as his new residence. On August 20, 2012, when the voucher expired, Jones left the motel and did not return. He did not report a change of address with the Aurora P.D. and did not register as a sex offender with any other local law enforcement agency in Adams County or in any other jurisdiction in Colorado until 2013. The People charged him with failure to register as a sex offender between August 26, 2012 and November 28, 2012.

At the close of evidence of his trial, Jones moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that (1) the prosecution presented no evidence of where he resided during the relevant time period, and (2) ceasing to reside at an address and thereafter lacking a fixed residence does not fall within the meaning of “changing an address” under C.R.S. 18-3-412.5(10(g). The trial court denied the motion, and Jones was convicted of the charge.

On appeal, Jones contended that the evidence at trial was insufficient to prove that he failed to register “upon changing an address” under C.R.S. § 18-3-412.5(1)(g). The Colorado Sex Offender Registration Act (Act), C.R.S. §§ 16-22-101 to -115, requires sex offenders to register with the local law enforcement agency where the person resides. C.R.S. § 16-22-108(3)(i) criminalizes the failure to register upon “ceasing to reside at an address and [thereafter] lacking a fixed residence.” A violation of this section must be charged under the catchall provision in C.R.S. § 18-3-412.5(1). Here, the prosecution elected to charge Jones only under C.R.S. § 18-3-412.5(1)(g), which criminalizes the “[f]ailure to register with the local law enforcement agency in each jurisdiction in which the person resides upon changing an address, establishing an additional residence, or legally changing names.” Although Jones was required to register as a sex offender in each jurisdiction where he resided, there was no evidence that Jones had a fixed residence during any portion of the relevant time period. Because the evidence at trial did not establish a violation of C.R.S. § 18-3-412.5(1)(g), he was wrongfully convicted under that statutory provision.

The judgment was vacated.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Findings of Inventory Search of Vehicle Need Not Be Suppressed Because Search Was Lawful

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Camarigg on Thursday, September 7, 2017.

Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol—Impound—Vehicle—Inventory Search—Warrant—Prosecutorial Misconduct—Burden of Proof—Beyond a Reasonable Doubt—Evidence—Intent to Manufacture Methamphetamine.

After defendant was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI), officers impounded his vehicle because it was parked in front of a gas pump at a gas station. The officers conducted an inventory search of the vehicle and discovered a sealed box containing items commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Based on those items, they obtained a warrant to search the vehicle and found additional items used to manufacture methamphetamine. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence obtained from the search and warrant. The trial court denied the motion. A jury convicted defendant of DUI, careless driving, and possession of chemicals, supplies, or equipment with intent to manufacture methamphetamine.

On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court should have excluded evidence discovered in the inventory search of his vehicle and under the subsequently issued warrant. A vehicle is lawfully taken into custody if the seizure is authorized by law and department regulations and is reasonable. Inventory searches are an exception to the warrant requirement and are reasonable if (1) the vehicle was lawfully taken into custody; (2) the search was conducted according to “an established, standardized policy”; and (3) there is no showing that police acted in bad faith or for the sole purpose of investigation. Here, the decision to impound the vehicle was reasonable, and the inventory search was conducted according to standard policy and was constitutional. Because the inventory search was constitutional, evidence obtained under the subsequently issued warrant could not have been tainted.

Defendant next argued that the prosecutor improperly quantified the concept of reasonable doubt and lowered the burden of proof by using a puzzle analogy during closing argument. The prosecutor used a puzzle analogy to convey the difference between proof beyond a reasonable doubt and proof beyond all doubt, which other courts have found permissible. Further, the prosecutor used the analogy to rebut the defense argument that evidence of defendant’s guilt was speculative. The Court of Appeals concluded there was no reasonable possibility that the prosecutor’s analogy contributed to defendant’s conviction. Additionally, the jury was properly instructed on the reasonable doubt standard. Therefore, any impropriety in the prosecutor’s analogy was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Lastly, defendant contended there was insufficient evidence that he intended to manufacture methamphetamine. There was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a rational jury could conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to manufacture methamphetamine.

The judgment was affirmed.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Protective Sweep Not Permissible Absent Suspicion of Another Person Hiding in Home

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in United States v. Nelson on Thursday, August 17, 2017.

A warrant was issued for the arrest of Stephen M. Nelson after he violated terms of his probation. Although Nelson’s whereabouts were originally unknown, the United States Marshals Service were informed that Nelson often spent time at a home owned by Antonio Bradley. Bradley was instructed to inform the Deputy Marshal when Nelson arrived at his home, which Bradley ultimately did, giving consent for deputy marshals to “go inside and search for” Nelson.

Upon entry, the deputies searched three of the four levels of the home before one deputy saw movement on the first floor. One deputy began shouting for Nelson to come out and show himself. After Nelson complied with the orders, he was put into custody and brought to the second floor as one deputy searched the first floor. The deputy found two firearms under a pile of clothing on a bed. Because Nelson had two previous felony convictions, the government charged him with possession of a firearm by a felon.

Nelson moved to suppress the firearms charge, arguing that the deputies violated the Fourth Amendment by continuing to search the residence after arresting him. In response, the government made two arguments relevant on appeal: (1) Bradley, the owner of the residence, consented to the search; and (2) the deputy lawfully searched the first level under the protective-sweep doctrine. Under the first exception to the general rule that police must obtain a warrant to search a home, the police may, in conjunction with an arrest in a home, “as a precautionary matter and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, look in closets and other spaces immediately adjoining the place of arrest from which an attack could be immediately launched.” Under the second exception, police may conduct a “protective sweep” beyond areas immediately adjoining the arrest if there are “articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, would warrant a reasonably prudent officer in believing that the area to be swept harbors an individual posing a danger to those on the arrest scene.”

The district court concluded that the protective sweep was valid under the second prong. Nelson appeals, arguing that the district court erred in relying on the second prong because the deputy had no reason to believe that there was a third person hiding in the residence.

This court holds that under the second prong, the government is required to articulate specific facts giving rise to the inference of a dangerous third person’s presence. There could always be a dangerous person concealed within a structure, but that cannot justify a protective sweep. The government argues that the deputies were informed that there was another person in the home, which, this court finds, would be the sort of specific, articulable information that might have permitted the deputy to search the first level after arresting Nelson; however, for that information to be relevant, the deputy had to have it before he conducted the protective sweep, which he did not. The court found that the first-level search was not a valid protective sweep under the second prong.

Next, the government argues that the first prong validates the first-level search under two theories: (1) the deputies arrested Nelson on the first level, so the search of the bed on that level occurred immediately adjacent to the arrest; and (2) even if the deputies arrested Nelson on the second level, the first level nevertheless immediately adjoins the second level. This court declines to consider the arguments, as the government failed to make the specific arguments below, and courts do not generally address arguments presented for the first time on appeal.

The government then argues that Owens’ search “was close enough to the line of validity that an objectively reasonable officer would have acted” in the same way. The court declines to consider this argument because the Supreme Court has “limited [the good-faith] exception to circumstances where someone other than a police officer has made the mistaken determination that resulted in the Fourth Amendment violation.” The government neither suggests that the deputies relied on a third party’s mistake in deciding to search the first level, nor explains why this case might present the “very unusual circumstances” that would convince us to “extend th[e] good-faith exception beyond its pedigree.”

Finally, the government argues that Bradley consented to a search of his entire residence. Whether a search remains within the boundaries of the consent is a question of fact to be determined from the totality of the circumstances by the trial court. Although the government raised this argument below, the district court declined to conduct the fact finding necessary for us to resolve this issue on appeal. We therefore remand for it to do so.

The Tenth Circuit VACATED the district court’s order denying Nelson’s motion to suppress and REMANDED for the district court to determine whether the deputies exceeded the scope of Bradley’s consent when they continued searching his residence after they arrested Nelson.

Public Comment Period Open for 2018 10th Circuit Local Rules

On Tuesday, September 5, 2017, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals released its 2018 local rules for public comment. Comments will be accepted through October 31, 2017. A final version of the new rules will be posted on the Tenth Circuit’s website on December 1, 2017, and the rules will be effective January 1, 2018. A memo describing the changes to the local rules is available here, and a redline of the rule change is available here.

Effective December 31, 2017, two changes will be made to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 4(a)(4)(B)(iii) will be changed to re-insert a sentence confirming that no fees are due when an amended notice of appeal is filed. Additionally, Rule 28.1(e)(3) will be deleted to correct a scrivener’s error; the rule should have been deleted last year.

Comments regarding the rule change may be submitted to the court clerk via email.

JDF Forms in All Categories Amended by State Judicial

The Colorado State Judicial Branch has been amending its JDF forms in August. To date, there are 246 forms with an August revision date, including forms in every major category.

The JDF forms are being revised to include the following language:

□ By checking this box, I am acknowledging I am filling in the blanks and not changing anything else on the form.
□ By checking this box, I am acknowledging that I have made a change to the original content of this form.
(Checking this box requires you to remove JDF number and copyright at the bottom of the form.)

For a complete list of the Colorado State Judicial Branch’s JDF forms, including those with August 2017 revision dates, click here.