May 25, 2019

Archives for July 21, 2014

Community Action Network School Supply Drive Starts July 21!

School Supply Drive Flyer(1)Each year, the Community Action Network holds a school supply drive to benefit the Denver Public Schools Educational Outreach Program, which provides assistance to homeless children in the Denver Public School System, including school supplies, breakfast and lunch assistance, uniforms, and more.

This year’s school supply drive starts Monday, July 21, 2014 and will run through Friday, August 1, 2014. Barrels for school supply donations have been set up in the lobby of the CBA/DBA and CLE offices at 1900 Grant Street on the 3rd and 9th floors. Donations may be dropped off from Firms may also participate in the drive by collecting school supplies in easy-to-carry boxes at their offices; Ricoh will pick up the boxes the week of August 4.

Items needed for this year’s drive include:

  • Backpacks of all sizes;
  • Pencils, pens, crayons, and markers;
  • Binders, notebooks, folders, and paper;
  • Scissors, rulers, staplers, staples, glue, and glue sticks;
  • Pencil cases;
  • Scientific calculators, compasses, protractors, and geometry sets;
  • Dictionaries and thesauruses;
  • Navy and red polo shirts in all kids’ sizes;
  • And more!

For information on firm donations, click here or contact Alexa Drago or Kate Schuster.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Codefendant’s Guilty Plea Cannot Be Used as Evidence of Defendant’s Guilt

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v. Rios on Thursday, July 17, 2014.

Second-Degree Murder—First-Degree Assault—Jury Instructions—Plea Agreement—Refusal to Testify—Use of Physical Force—Combat-by-Agreement—Self-Defense.

A fight between rival gangs resulted in the death of a 16-year-old (victim) after Lakiesha Vigil, a member of defendant’s gang, drove her car into a crowd of people who had moved their fight to a driveway. She hit the victim, pinning his upper torso against the wall. Vigil then drove the car out of the driveway. It was unclear whether defendant and/or defendant’s cousin, Anthony Quintana, hit the victim with a bat a few times before getting into Vigil’s vehicle. The victim died at the hospital several hours after the incident. Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and first-degree assault.

On appeal, defendant argued that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury not to consider Quintana’s refusal to testify as evidence of his guilt, and erred in informing the jury about Quintana’s plea agreement. Quintana had entered into a plea agreement whereby he agreed to testify against defendant. However, when called to testify against defendant, Quintana refused to testify. The trial court thereafter erred by instructing the jury regarding Quintana’s guilty plea, because it may have given rise to an impermissible inference of defendant’s guilt, which was not cured by any limiting language. Further, this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals reversed defendant’s convictions, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Defendant also argued that the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the use of physical force as a self-defense. The trial court erred in instructing the jury on the provocation exception to self-defense, because the evidence did not warrant giving these instructions. Accordingly, on retrial, if the same or similar evidence is presented, the trial court should not instruct the jury on the provocation exception to self defense.

Finally, the court’s combat-by-agreement instructions failed to instruct the jury that the prosecution had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt mutual combat has been established. If this error arises on retrial, it also must be corrected.

Summary and full case available here.

Colorado Court of Appeals: Attorney Fee Award Erroneous when Underlying Claim Was to Recover Judgment

The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Castro v. Lintz on Thursday, July 17, 2014.

Workers’ Compensation—Tort—Piercing the Corporate Veil—Enforcement of Judgment—Breach of Duty to Creditor—Dismissal—Attorney Fees—CRS § 13-17-201.

In 2010, Castro was employed by Lintz Construction, Inc. He was injured during the course of his employment when he fell from the roof of a building while shoveling snow. Castro filed a workers’ compensation claim against both Lintz Construction and Jonathan Lintz personally. The administrative law judge (ALJ) ordered Lintz Construction to pay Castro benefits in the amount of $4,536.76. The district court later granted Lintz’s motion to dismiss Castro’s claims to enforce the judgment against Lintz on the ground that the claims were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, awarding attorney fees to Lintz. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order.

On appeal, Castro contended that the district court erred as a matter of law in awarding Lintz attorney fees under CRS § 13-17-201. An award of attorney fees under § 13-17-201 is mandatory when a trial court dismisses a tort action under CRCP 12(b). Castro’s claims for disregarding the corporate form (piercing the corporate veil) to recover the money he had already been awarded in the workers’ compensation claim and enforcement of his judgment against Lintz Construction do not sound in tort. Although Castro’s breach of duty to creditor was a tort, the essence of this claim did not sound in tort because Castro sought to recover only the benefits he was awarded. Therefore, the district court erred in awarding Lintz his attorney fees under CRS § 13-17-201.

Summary and full case available here.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 7/18/2014

On Friday, July 18, 2014, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued three published opinions and two unpublished opinions.

United States v. Ramsey

Parker v. CitiMortgage, Inc.

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