Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Petitioner Andres Castillo admitted he fired a shotgun at several people, including two police officers, in a crowded parking lot after a night out celebrating his wife’s birthday in downtown Denver. But he claimed he acted in self-defense. Driving a car occupied by his wife and several friends, Castillo tried to exit a parking lot, when an unknown assailant opened fire on his car. At some point during this episode, Castillo got out of the car, retrieved a shotgun from his trunk, and returned fire. Nearby police officers then rushed to the scene and began firing at Castillo from a different direction. He turned and shot back. Castillo testified that he didn’t realize his targets were police officers; he claimed that he thought they were associated with the initial shooter. Castillo asserted self-defense at trial. The trial court instructed the jury on self-defense but, over Castillo’s objection, also instructed the jury on two exceptions to self-defense: initial aggressor and provocation. The jury found Castillo guilty of several offenses. A division of the court of appeals found that: (1) the trial court did not err in giving the initial aggressor jury instruction; and (2) while the trial court did err in giving the provocation jury instruction, the error was harmless. After review, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in giving the initial aggressor jury instruction because there was no evidence to support the instruction, and that error was not harmless. Castillo was entitled to a new trial; the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded for further proceedings. View "Castillo v. Colorado" on Justia Law

In 2008, James Stackhouse was charged with one count of sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, a class-three felony, one count of sexual assault on a child, a class-four felony, and the sentence enhancer of sexual assault on a child as a pattern of abuse, which elevated the class-four felony of sexual assault on a child to a class-three felony. In 2010, Stackhouse proceeded to trial on these charges. A jury found Stackhouse guilty of sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust and of sexual assault on a child. The jury did not find the pattern-of-abuse sentence enhancer. At issue before the Colorado Supreme Court in this case was the district court's order permitting the State to retry Stackhouse on only one of the many alleged acts of sexual assault on a child for chich he had been charged. The district court 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. Concluding that the jury lacked unanimity as to the commission of two or more types of abuse did not require (or even permit) a conclusion that the jury necessarily and unanimously agreed that Stackhouse did not engage in multiple acts of abuse of a single type. The Supreme Court concluded the district court abused its discretion when it found otherwise. Therefore, in this case double jeopardy did not require the State to elect the January 2007 allegation as the sole basis for Stackhouse’s retrial. View "Colorado v. Stackhouse" on Justia Law

Defendant Sir Mario Owens was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death in 2008. In 2017, the trial court denied defendant's motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Crim. P. 32.2, as well as his related motion to disqualify the District Attorney’s Office for the 18th Judicial District and to appoint a special prosecutor. The basis for the motion to disqualify was an allegation that the District Attorney had failed to disclose evidence that would have been favorable to defendant's defense. Over defendant's objection, the trial court issued a protective order, sealing portions of the post-conviction motions practice. In 2017, petitioner The Colorado Independent filed a motion with the district court, asking the court to unseal the records, arguing that public access to the records was required by the First Amendment, Article II, section 10 of the Colorado Constitution, common law, and the Colorado Criminal Justice Records Act. The district court denied that motion, and Petitioner filed for relief under C.A.R. 21, limiting its request for relief to the argument that presumptive access to judicial records is a constitutional guarantee. The Colorado Supreme Court found that while presumptive access to judicial proceedings is a right recognized under both the state and federal constitutions, neither the United States Supreme Court nor the Colorado Supreme Court has ever held that records filed with a court are treated the same way. The Court declined to conclude here that such unfettered access to criminal justice records was guaranteed by either the First Amendment or Article II, section 10 of the Colorado Constitution. The Court therefore affirmed the denial to unseal the records at issue here. View "In re Colorado v. Sir Mario Owens" on Justia Law

After pulling over Kimberlie Verigan’s car during a traffic stop, police noticed potential contraband in the car. Police then searched the car and without providing Miranda warnings. After Verigan admitted to possessing methamphetamines, the police arrested her and brought her to a police station, where she received Miranda warnings, waived her rights, and again confessed to possessing methamphetamines. Verigan ultimately moved to suppress her statements, asserting, as pertinent here, that the police had obtained her second confession through the use of the type of two-stage interrogation technique that a majority of the Supreme Court had ruled impermissible in Missouri v. Seibert, 542 U.S. 600 (2004). The trial court denied Verigan’s motion, and Verigan was subsequently convicted. She then appealed, and a division of the court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that because Seibert was a fractured opinion with no agreement by a majority on the principles of law to be applied, Seibert did not announce a precedential rule. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the outcome of the appellate court's judgment, joining, however, "the vast majority of courts that have addressed the issue now before us and conclude that Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in Seibert, which enunciated the 'narrowest grounds' on which the members of the majority concurred, is the controlling precedent to be applied." Applying Justice Kennedy’s test here, the Colorado Court concluded the officers in this case did not engage in a two-step interrogation in a deliberate attempt to undermine the effectiveness of the Miranda warnings provided to Verigan. Accordingly, because Verigan’s pre- and post-warning statements were indisputably voluntary, the division correctly determined that Verigan’s post-warning statements were admissible. View "Verigan v. Colorado" on Justia Law

At issue before the Colorado Supreme Court was whether the Office of the State Public Defender (“the P.D.”) was authorized to represent an indigent party in a civil forfeiture proceeding. The State argued that the P.D. did not have statutory authority to enter its appearance in civil forfeiture matters. Respondent Alyse Shank argued the statute that authorized the P.D. to represent indigent defendants in criminal proceedings contained a general grant of authority for the P.D. to appear in any case where the P.D. deemed such representation to be in the interest of justice. The State moved to have the the public defender disqualified. After review, the Supreme Court held that the statute authorizing public defenders to represent indigent defendants did not extend to civil forfeiture actions. Thus, the trial court erred by denying the People’s motion to disqualify. View "In re Colorado v. Shank" on Justia Law

Ilyias Austin petitioned for relief after a district court denied his motion for a preliminary hearing. The Colorado Supreme Court determined Austin was charged by information with a class 4 felony committed as a “crime of violence” as defined at section 18-1.3-406(2)(a)(I)(B) and (II)(C) of the revised statutes, and as such, he was statutorily entitled to a preliminary hearing. The Supreme Court remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings. View "In re Colorado v. Austin" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's consideration centered on whether Colorado’s Independent Ethics Commission (“the IEC”) had jurisdiction pursuant to article XXIX of the state constitution to hear a complaint based on allegations that then-Secretary of State Scott Gessler (“the Secretary”) breached the public trust by using money from his statutorily-provided discretionary fund for partisan and personal purposes. The IEC investigated the complaint, held a hearing, and determined that the Secretary’s conduct breached the public trust. The Secretary sought judicial review of the IEC’s ruling, arguing that the IEC lacked jurisdiction over the case. Both the district court and the court of appeals affirmed the IEC’s ruling. The Colorado Supreme Court held that relevant jurisdictional language in article XXIX, section 5 of the state constitution authorized the IEC to hear complaints involving ethical standards of conduct relating to activities that could allow covered individuals, including elected officials, to improperly benefit financially from their public employment. Furthermore, the Court held that section 24-18-103, C.R.S. (2017), was one such ethical standard of conduct which established the holding of public office or employment was a public trust, and that a public official “shall carry out his duties for the benefit of the people of the state.” Because the allegations against the Secretary clearly implicated this standard, the Court concluded the complaint fell within the IEC’s jurisdiction and rejected the Secretary’s jurisdictional and vagueness challenges. Additionally, the Court rejected the Secretary’s procedural due process claim because he failed to demonstrate that he suffered any prejudice as a result of the alleged violation. View "Gessler v. Smith" on Justia Law

This case presented the Colorado Supreme Court an opportunity to clarify whether the voluntariness of consent to a search in Colorado had to be proven by “clear and convincing evidence” or by “a preponderance of the evidence.” Thomas Delage was stopped by police when they spotted him and a companion at 3 a.m. in an alleyway that had been the scene of recent thefts from cars. Both men were carrying backpacks and flashlights and they were standing next to several parked cars. During the interaction between Delage and the officers, police searched Delage’s backpack and found methamphetamines. At a hearing about the admissibility of the drugs, Delage and the officers involved gave differing accounts of the details and duration of the stop. Applying a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, the trial court found that “it is probably more likely true than not there was consent under the circumstances given.” On that basis, the trial court denied Delage’s motion to suppress the methamphetamines. The court of appeals agreed Delage had given consent, but the panel noted that the court had not considered whether Delage’s consent was voluntary. Because consent must be voluntary to be valid, the court of appeals vacated Delage’s conviction and remanded, instructing the trial court to consider whether the State had proven by “clear and convincing evidence” that Delage’s consent was voluntary. The State petitioned for certiorari, asking for clarification on the proper standard for the trial court to determine voluntariness. "Under federal law, the answer is clear, as the United States Supreme Court explained more than forty years ago that voluntariness need only be shown by a preponderance of the evidence." The Colorado Supreme Court held that in Colorado courts the same standard applied and that the State must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that a search was consented to voluntarily in order to overcome a motion to suppress evidence obtained in that search. View "Colorado v. Delage" on Justia Law

Megan Parocha fled from New Jersey to Colorado to escape her abusive spouse. Her husband, who knew that she had come to join her family in Colorado, contacted her almost daily. When she expressed reservations about returning to New Jersey, the frequency and tone of his contact intensified. He called her, emailed her, and texted her repeatedly, and she felt threatened. When Megan sought a civil protection order, her husband claimed that Colorado courts had no jurisdiction to offer her this protection because he was an absent non-resident. This case presented the Colorado Supreme Court the first opportunity to address whether and when a civil protection order was available to a victim of alleged domestic abuse who comes to Colorado seeking refuge from a non-resident. The Court concluded an out-of-state party’s harassment of, threatening of, or attempt to coerce an individual known by the non-resident to be located in Colorado was a tortious act sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction under the state’s long-arm statute, section 13-1-124, C.R.S. (2017). The Court also concluded such conduct created a sufficient nexus between the out-of-state party and Colorado to satisfy the requisite minimum contacts such that the exercise of jurisdiction by a Colorado court to enter a protection order comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. View "Parocha v. Parocha" on Justia Law

Appellee David Ehrnstein was convicted by jury of incest against L.E. He filed a motion for a new trial, alleging that one of his trial prosecutors and the victim advocate in his case had instructed L.E. to avoid a defense subpoena. Prior to holding a hearing on that motion, the trial court found that it was compelled by the rules of professional conduct to appoint a special prosecutor for purposes of the hearing. Pursuant to sections 16-12-102(2) and 20-1-107(3), C.R.S. (2017), the district attorney filed an interlocutory appeal with the Colorado Supreme Court, which was faced with deciding whether the trial court abused its discretion in appointing the special prosecutor. The Court concluded the trial court abused its discretion because it misapplied the law when it concluded that Colo. RPC 3.7 required the appointment of a special prosecutor for purposes of the hearing on the new trial motion in this case. View "Colorado v. Ehrnstein" on Justia Law