July 21, 2019

Archives for October 30, 2018

Governor Hickenlooper Appoints Judges to Second and Fifth Judicial District Courts

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018, the governor’s office announced Governor Hickenlooper’s appointment of judges to the district courts in the Second and Fifth Judicial Districts.

Darryl Fitzgerald Shockley was appointed to the Second Judicial District Court. He will fill a vacancy occasioned by the retirement of Hon. William Robbins, effective December 31, 2018. Shockley is currently a Chief Deputy District Attorney in the Denver DA’s Office, where he serves in the Economic Crimes, Family Violence, and Gang Units. He has been a prosecutor for 14 years and spent many years focusing on white collar crimes, including computer crimes, embezzlement, identity theft, securities fraud, and organized crime. Before becoming a DA, Shockley was a civil defense litigator with White and Steele, where his practice included construction defect litigation and medical malpractice. He received his undergraduate degrees from the University of Missouri and his law degree from the University of Missouri School of Law.

Catherine Jane Cheroutes was appointed to the Fifth Judicial District Court. She will fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Hon. Wayne Patton, effective February 1, 2019. Cheroutes is currently the managing partner of Cheroutes Zweig PC, where she primarily practices domestic relations law. She also represents clients in criminal defense, and accepts court appointments in dependency and neglect, juvenile delinquency, and divorce cases. She received her undergraduate degree from Franklin & Marshall College and her law degree from the University of Colorado School of Law.

Reed Wilson Owens was also appointed to the Fifth Judicial District Court. He will fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Hon. Frederick Gannett, effective January 1, 2019. Owens is currently the Lead Deputy Public Defender in the Dillon Office of the Colorado State Public Defender. His practice consists of criminal defense, including juvenile delinquency, misdemeanor, and felony matters. He received his undergraduate degree from Colorado College and his law degree from the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.

For more information about the appointments, click here.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 10/30/2018

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued one published opinion and five unpublished opinions.

Kucera v. Central Intelligence Agency

Nosewicz v. Janosko

Bruce v. Pacific Specialty Insurance Co.

Blair v. Raemisch

Sweeney v. Allred

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

Colorado Supreme Court: Balancing Test Appropriate when Deciding Competing Interests of Potential Parents in IVF Divorce Case

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Marriage of Rooks on Monday, October 29, 2018.

Divorce—Assisted Reproduction—Embryos.

In this dissolution of marriage proceeding, the supreme court reviewed how courts should resolve disagreements over the disposition of a couple’s cryogenically preserved pre-embryos when that couple divorces. The court held that because the underlying interests at stake are the equivalently important, yet competing, right to procreate and right to avoid procreation, courts should strive, where possible, to honor both parties’ interests in procreational autonomy. Thus, courts should look first to any existing agreement expressing the spouses’ intent regarding disposition of the couple’s remaining pre-embryos in the event of divorce. In the absence of such an agreement, courts should seek to balance the parties’ respective interests in receipt of the pre-embryos. In balancing those interests, courts should consider the intended use of the party seeking to preserve the pre-embryos; a party’s demonstrated ability, or inability, to become a genetic parent through means other than use of the disputed pre-embryos; the parties’ reasons for undertaking in vitro fertilization in the first place; the emotional, financial, or logistical hardship for the person seeking to avoid becoming a genetic parent; any demonstrated bad faith or attempt to use the pre-embryos as unfair leverage in the divorce process; and other considerations relevant to the parties’ specific situation. However, courts should not consider whether the party seeking to become a genetic parent using the pre-embryos can afford a child. Nor shall the sheer number of a party’s existing children, standing alone, be a reason to preclude preservation or use of the pre-embryos. Finally, courts should not consider whether the party seeking to become a genetic parent using the pre-embryos could instead adopt a child or otherwise parent non-biological children. The court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and remanded the case with directions to return the matter to the trial court to apply the announced balancing framework.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Failure to Give Jury Instruction on “Penetration” Not Plain Error where Fact Not At Issue

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in People v. Lozano-Ruiz on Monday, October 29, 2018.

Plain Error—Criminal Jury Instructions.

In this case, the supreme court reviewed the trial court’s reversal of a sexual assault conviction for failure to provide a jury instruction containing the statutory definition of “sexual penetration.” The court concluded that because the question of whether sexual penetration had occurred was not a contested issue at trial, the county court did not plainly err by failing to give a corresponding instruction to the jury. Accordingly, the court reversed the trial court’s order and affirmed Lozano-Ruiz’s conviction.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Tenth Circuit: Unpublished Opinions, 10/29/2018

On Monday, October 29, 2018, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued two published opinions and four unpublished opinions.

Johnson v. City of Roswell

Elder v. Farris

United States v. Elliott

United States v. Underwood

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