Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Jose Leonel Orellana-Leon sexually abused his girlfriend’s daughter, L.V., from the time she was seven or eight years old until she was fifteen. When L.V. was fifteen years old, she told her father and stepmother about the abuse; as a result, a forensic interview was conducted. The State subsequently charged Orellana-Leon with sexual assault on a child (“SAOC”) by one in a position of trust. Before trial, the State gave notice it intended to admit statements L.V. made to her father, stepmother, and the forensic interviewer under the child hearsay statute. Over the defense’s objection, the trial court granted the State's request. The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on what happens when a defendant is charged under a statute that references two different ages. In the companion case, Chirinos-Raudales v. Colorado, 2023 CO 33, ¶ 21, __ P.3d __, the Court concluded that the “subject of the action” for SAOC by one in a position of trust was the substantive offense, which applied when the child was under eighteen, rather than the sentence enhancer, which applied when the child is under fifteen. Applying that holding to this case, the Court concluded that because the victim was under eighteen at the time she made the statements in question, the trial court properly admitted them under the child hearsay statute. View "Orellana-Leon v. Colorado" on Justia Law

Defendant Noelle Kelley was taken by ambulance to the hospital after she was involved in a car accident in which another person was injured. At the hospital, an officer investigating the accident asked Kelley if she would release her medical records to the police. She refused. After Kelley was charged with vehicular assault, careless driving, and driving under the influence, she pled not guilty and endorsed the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication. The State moved the trial court to conclude that Kelley’s endorsement of involuntary intoxication as an affirmative defense constituted an implied waiver of her physician-patient privilege and thus the State was entitled to the disclosure of her medical records. They further asked the court to determine that Kelley’s refusal to release her medical records was admissible at trial. The trial court granted the State's motion as to both issues. Kelley then petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court to exercise its original jurisdiction for review. Kelly argued: (1) when she endorsed the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication, she did not impliedly waive her physician-patient privilege; and (2) even if she did waive the privilege, the trial court’s order requiring the release of her medical records was too broad. Kelley also argued that her refusal to release her medical records was inadmissible because she cannot be penalized for exercising her Fourth Amendment right to refuse a warrantless search. The Supreme Court concluded: (1) a party impliedly waives the physician-patient privilege when they assert the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication, limited to those medical records related to the affirmative defense; and (2) the trial court’s disclosure order here was not overbroad because it was carefully limited to those medical records that related to Kelley’s endorsement of the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication. Because the parties did not have the opportunity to fully litigate the issue of the admissibility of Kelley's refusal to release the records, the Supreme Court declined to address it. View "Colorado v. Kelley" on Justia Law

Defendant Cristobal Garcia, was found guilty of one count of attempted extreme-indifference murder, a form of first degree murder that requires that the defendant “evidenc[e] an attitude of universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life generally.” Garcia argued on appeal that the court of appeals erred by holding that the trial court wasn’t required to define “universal malice” for the jury. Finding no reversible error, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court. View "Garcia v. Colorado" on Justia Law

Jacob Woodside committed two alcohol-related offenses in relatively quick succession. First, he pled guilty to the later-committed offense, which was sentenced as his first despite having occurred second in time. Afterward, he pled guilty to the earlier-committed offense and argued that it too should be sentenced as his first. The trial court disagreed, finding that Woodside’s prior conviction subjected him to second-offense penalties because “at the time of sentencing” he had a relevant “prior conviction,” despite the order in which the offenses occurred. The Colorado Supreme Court found that the plain language of section 42-4-1307(5)(a) C.R.S. (2022) imposed second-offense penalties when a defendant has a relevant prior conviction; it did not require that conduct underlying a second-offense sentence pre-date conduct underlying the first-offense sentence. The Court concluded the trial court properly determined that Woodside’s Weld County DWAI, though based on conduct pre-dating his Grand County DWAI, was a second offense subject to the penalties laid out in section 42-4-1307(5)(a). View "Colorado v. Woodside" on Justia Law

Petitioner Ari Liggett was charged with the first degree murder of his mother. Although Liggett pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity (“NGRI”), he was ultimately convicted. On appeal, Liggett argued: (1) the trial court violated his Fifth Amendment rights by ruling that the State could use psychiatric evidence derived from Liggett’s voluntary custodial statements to “rebut any evidence presented that [he] was insane at the time of the alleged offense,” even though police obtained those statements in violation of his Miranda rights; and (2) the trial court erred by permitting the State to subpoena and present privileged information from his nonphysician medical providers. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding that when a defendant presents psychiatric evidence supporting their insanity defense, they can open the door to the admission of psychiatric evidence rebutting that defense, even if the evidence includes the defendant’s voluntary but non-Miranda-compliant statements. Additionally, the Court held that § 16-8-103.6(2)(a), C.R.S. (2022)’s waiver of privilege as to “communications made by the defendant to a physician or psychologist” includes communications made to a physician’s or psychologist’s agents. Because the nonphysician medical providers who testified at Liggett’s trial made their observations as agents of Liggett’s physicians, the Court concluded Liggett waived the statutory privileges he shared with those providers. View "Liggett v. Colorado" on Justia Law

The named victim in this sexual assault case availed herself of her constitutional and statutory right to attend the preliminary hearing held by the county court. After the State rested their case at the hearing, the defense called the named victim to the stand, even though it had not subpoenaed her. The named victim exited the courtroom, but the court prevented her from leaving the courthouse, ordered her to return to the courtroom, and eventually required her to testify. Although the State objected based on the Victim Rights Act (“VRA”) and Colorado case law, the court overruled their objection. In so doing, the court, like defense counsel, relied on the Colorado Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. District Court, 576 P.2d 169 (Colo. 1978). The State then obtained a stay and petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the county court's order. Given the state of the record at the preliminary hearing, the Supreme Court concluded the county court erred by applying McDonald. "And, in any event, McDonald preceded the VRA, which was a game changer. Reading McDonald with the gloss supplied by the VRA, we hold that defense counsel may not call to the witness stand an unsubpoenaed victim who happens to be in attendance at a preliminary hearing." View "Colorado v. Platteel" on Justia Law

After defense counsel raised concerns regarding seventeen-year-old A.T.C.’s competency, the magistrate ordered a competency evaluation. A psychologist from the Office of Behavioral Health (“OBH”) subsequently evaluated A.T.C. and determined that he was incompetent but restorable. Shortly thereafter, based on OBH’s evaluation, the magistrate entered a preliminary finding that A.T.C. was incompetent but restorable. The State moved for a second competency evaluation, asking the magistrate to allow a psychologist of the State's choosing to evaluate A.T.C. Over defense counsel’s objection, the magistrate granted the motion. The psychologist retained by the State evaluated A.T.C. and concluded that he was competent to proceed. Following a contested hearing at which OBH’s psychologist, the psychologist retained by the State, and a third psychologist all testified, the magistrate found that A.T.C. was competent to proceed. Defense counsel timely petitioned the juvenile court for review, but was unsuccessful. Counsel then petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court. Addressing whether a juvenile in a delinquency case could seek interlocutory review of a magistrate’s competency finding in the juvenile court as a matter of first impression, the Supreme Court concluded a magistrate’s finding of competency pursuant to section 19-1-108(3)(a.5), C.R.S. (2022), was subject to review in the juvenile court under section 19-1-108(5.5). View "Colorado in the interest of: A.T.C." on Justia Law

On April 20, 2017, defendant William Davis was charged with vehicular eluding, reckless driving, and driving under restraint after failing to yield to a Parks and Wildlife officer at Golden Gate Canyon State Park. The court appointed Garen Gervey as Davis’s public defender and set the trial for November 20, 2017. On October 30, 2017, Davis, through counsel, moved for a continuance because: (1) Gervey had another trial set for the same day; and (2) due to a scheduling misunderstanding, investigation was still being completed in the case. The court denied the motion after a hearing in which it emphasized the scheduling difficulties it was having in trying to set a trial date and stated that because this case was “essentially a traffic case,” it would likely be straightforward enough to be tried in a single day. In denying the motion, the court also observed, quoting from Colorado v. Coria, 937 P.2d 386 (Colo. 1997), that the “substitution of one public defender with another does not violate the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, absent evidence of prejudice.” The court explained that it perceived no prejudice because it would not take an attorney “of any competence any time to prepare,” and therefore denied Davis’s motion. On the morning of trial, Davis, through newly substituted counsel, again moved for a continuance. The court denied the motion, and trial proceeded. The jury convicted Davis of vehicular eluding, reckless driving, and driving under restraint. The appellate court adopted the holding from Colorado v. Rainey, 2021 COA 35, 491 P.3d 531, that indigent defendants had a constitutional right to continued representation by appointed counsel and district courts had to apply the factors announced in Colorado v. Brown, 322 P.3d 214 when considering a continuance to enable continued representation by appointed counsel. The conviction was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the appellate court, finding the trial court correctly considered whether defendant would have been prejudiced if his appointed counsel was replaced by a different public defender, and concluded that he would not be. View "Colorado v. Davis" on Justia Law

Robert Rainey was charged with nine criminal counts related to domestic violence in July 2016. The trial court appointed a public defender as Rainey’s counsel and set trial for January 9, 2017. The night before trial, a storm damaged the courthouse, and the trial was reset to the following day. The State was granted a number of continuances Rainey’s objection because witnesses were unavailable. Trial was ultimately continued to March 6, 2017—the day before the expiration of the speedy-trial deadline. The public defender confirmed that the date would work for trial and agreed to appear for the pretrial readiness conference set for March 3. At the conference, defense counsel raised for the first time that he would not in fact be available on March 6 for trial because of pre-existing vacation plans. Counsel's request for a continuance was denied, with the trial court observing that Rainey’s case was factually simple, and counsel would not need a substantial amount of time to prepare. Counsel conceded that he could not think of any reason why another public defender could not adequately prepare for the trial over the weekend. Trial took place on March 6 after Rainey’s two new attorneys announced that they were ready to proceed. The jury convicted Rainey on two of the nine counts—second degree kidnapping and criminal mischief—with a further finding that both crimes constituted acts of domestic violence. Rainey appealed his convictions, arguing the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to continued representation of appointed counsel when it denied his request for a continuance and forced him to proceed with the public defenders who had a weekend to prepare his case. The Colorado Supreme Court determined a defendant did not have a right to continued representation by a particular appointed lawyer: the right to continued representation by a particular attorney flows from the right to choose that attorney, which does not apply when counsel is appointed. "Still, if a defendant represented by an appointed attorney can show that denying a continuance and replacing that appointed attorney would prejudice their case, due process requires that the defendant be given a continuance so the attorney can continue the representation." View "Colorado v. Rainey" on Justia Law

In 2011, Respondent Theodore Madrid was charged with one count of first degree murder and two counts of child abuse resulting in death. During jury selection, the prosecution excused prospective juror J.T., a Black man who indicated on his juror questionnaire that he was sixty-eight years old, married with children, and a retired customer-service specialist. The court gave each side a total of five minutes to question the prospective jurors, including J.T. The prosecution asked J.T. if he had any concerns about potentially having to look at autopsy pictures in the case, to which J.T. responded, "no." The prosecution then asked J.T., "Do you have a good joke?" J.T. responded, "I'm the joke." Thereafter, the prosecution used its ninth peremptory challenge to excuse J.T. Madrid raised a Batson challenge to this, arguing the excuse was race-neutral: "the real problem is we don’t know very much about him. He has a hearing issue it appears and he’s sort of completely nonresponsive. We have very little information on him from the questionnaire and no time to really have a very detailed conversation with him." The trial court accepted this reason and excused the juror. After a nine-day trial, the jury convicted Madrid on all counts. The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review on whether a party could, on remand, raise a new race-neutral reason to justify a peremptory strike made at trial. The Supreme Court responded in the negative: when a party has been provided with an adequate opportunity to present its race-neutral justifications at trial, it is barred from introducing new race-neutral justifications on remand. The Court's application of that holding to the facts here prompted the Court to affirm the court of appeals' judgment, which meant that Madrid was entitled to a new trial. View "Colorado v. Madrid" on Justia Law