May 23, 2019

Colorado Supreme Court: Jury’s Refusal to Convict on Pattern of Abuse Charge Does Not Necessitate Retrial on Only Single Act

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re People v. Stackhouse on Monday, June 18, 2018.

Double Jeopardy.

Pursuant to C.A.R. 21, the People challenged a district court order granting Stackhouse’s motion to compel the People to elect a particular allegation of sexual assault on a child as their sole basis for proceeding in Stackhouse’s retrial. The supreme court held that the district court erred when it concluded that the jury in Stackhouse’s first trial had necessarily concluded that he did not commit multiple acts of assault, and therefore that he could not be retried for more than a single assault. The court made the rule to show cause absolute, reversed the district court’s order, and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Summary provided courtesy of Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Court of Appeals Had Jurisdiction to Entertain Expedited Bond Revocation Appeal

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re People v. Jones on Monday, April 6, 2015.

Appeal of Bail Bond Orders—Conditions of Bail Bond.

Jones petitioned for relief pursuant to CAR 21 from a district court order granting the prosecution’s motion to revoke his bail bond in its entirety and order that he be held without bond pending resolution of charges in a different district. The district court reasoned that it was granted the power to do so by CRS § 16-4-105(3), upon concluding that another court had found probable cause to believe Jones committed a felony while released on bond. Jones appealed to the court of appeals according to the expedited procedure of CRS § 16-4-204, but that court found itself to be without jurisdiction to entertain an expedited appeal from an order entered pursuant to CRS § 16-4-105(3).

The Supreme Court held that the court of appeals erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain Jones’s appeal. Colorado’s statutory scheme governing release on bail entitled Jones to an expedited review of the district court’s order revoking his existing bond and declining to set another pending trial.

The Court further held that the district court erred in revoking Jones’s existing bond and denying him a right to pretrial release altogether. CRS § 16-4-105(3) merely empowered the district court to have Jones brought before it for purposes of modifying the conditions of his pretrial release.

The rule was made absolute. The matter was remanded to the district court with directions to reinstate Jones’s bail bond or change any condition of the bond, as authorized by statute.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Trial Court Abused Discretion by Allowing Change of Venue

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re Hagan v. Farmers Insurance Exchange; In re Ewald v. Farmers Insurance Exchange; In re Mayfield v. Farmers Insurance Exchange on Monday, January 26, 2015.

Change of Venue.

In these original proceedings under CAR 21, plaintiffs sought extraordinary relief from the trial courts’ orders granting a change of venue. The Supreme Court issued rules to show cause why those orders should not be vacated and venue transferred back to Boulder County District Court and consolidates its ruling here.

The Court held that the trial courts abused their discretion when they granted a change of venue in each of these cases. First, Boulder County District Court is a proper venue for all three cases; under CRCP 98(c)(1), plaintiffs were allowed to file their complaints in the county of their choice because defendant is a nonresident. Second, the trial courts granted the motions without the requisite evidentiary support. The affidavits that defendant submitted improperly focus on convenience to plaintiffs and do not satisfy the standard set forth in Sampson v. District Court, 197 Colo. 158, 160, 590 P.2d 958, 959 (1979). Consequently, the Court made the rules absolute and directed the transferee courts to return the cases to Boulder County District Court.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: Trial Court Erroneously Denied Party Its Counsel of Choice

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re People v. Hoskins on Monday, September 8, 2014.

Disqualification of Retained Counsel of Choice—Colo. RPC 1.9(a).

In this original CAR 21 proceeding, the Supreme Court reviewed the trial court’s order disqualifying petitioners’ retained counsel of choice under Colo. RPC 1.9(a). The trial court found that counsel previously represented another party in the same matter for which counsel now represents petitioners, and that the former client and petitioners have materially adverse interests. The Court held that, because the record before it was insufficient to support a finding that the interests of petitioners and the former client are materially adverse in this criminal proceeding, the trial court abused its discretion by disqualifying petitioners’ retained counsel of choice under Colo. RPC 1.9(a). Accordingly, the Court made the rule absolute, reversed the trial court’s order disqualifying petitioners’ counsel of choice, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Summary and full case available here, courtesy of The Colorado Lawyer.

Colorado Supreme Court: County Court Must Stay Execution of Judgment While Appeal Pending in District Court

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re People v. Steen on Monday, February 3, 2014.

Stay of Execution in County Court—CRS § 16-2-114(6)—Crim.P. 37(f).

In this original CAR 21 proceeding, the Supreme Court held that CRS § 16-2-114(6) and Crim.P. 37(f) require a county court, on request, to grant a stay of execution of a defendant’s sentence pending appeal of a misdemeanor conviction to the district court. Accordingly, the Court made the rule absolute and remanded the case to the district court with instructions that, pursuant to CRS § 16-2-114(6) and Crim.P. 37(f), a stay of execution shall remain in effect until after final disposition of a defendant’s appeal, unless modified by the district court.

Summary and full case available here.

Colorado Supreme Court: Trial Court Abused Discretion By Qualifying Virus as Substance That Can Result in Intoxication

The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in In re People v. Voth on Monday, October 21, 2013.

Involuntary Intoxication—CRS § 18-1-804—Insanity—CRS § 16-8-101.5.

In this original CAR 21 proceeding, the Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion when it found that a virus qualifies as a “substance” that can result in intoxication under CRS § 18-1-804. The Court further held that a defendant who is found to be legally insane at the time of the offense, but shortly thereafter regains sanity, may assert insanity as an affirmative defense if he or she meets all of the other relevant requirements.

The Court’s rule to show cause why the trial court’s order should not be vacated was made absolute. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Summary and full case available here.