Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether the defendant in this case validly waived his right to a jury trial following the trial court's advisement that failed to substantially comply with Crim. P. 23(a)(5)(II). Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that a defendant may not litigate the validity of such a waiver on direct appeal, but must do so in a post-conviction proceeding. Furthermore, the Court held that when evaluating a defendant's waiver to a jury trial, the post-conviction court must determine whether the defendant personally waived the right knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently. View "Colorado v. Walker" on Justia Law

This case centered on the contested March 19, 2013 election in Center, Colorado. The district court set aside the results of the recall, ordered a new recall election, and allowed the recalled officials to continue until the new election was conducted. The recalled officials challenged the district court's decision, arguing that court erred in setting aside the recall and ordering a new election, and erred in determining that there were flaws in how the votes were counted. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the district court erred as a matter of law in setting aside the recall and ordering a new recall election. Accordingly, the Court returned the case back to the district court with directions that judgment be entered that the replacement officials were duly elected. View "In re Jones v. Samora" on Justia Law

The parties appealed the water court's decision that holdover directors of a water conservancy district could not continue to act on behalf of the district a year after the expiration of their term. The Supreme Court held that the holdover provision in the Water Conservancy Act allowed for a holdover director to continue to serve as a de jure officer, and did not impose a temporal limit on that director's authority to act on behalf of the district. View "Yellow Jacket Water Conservancy District v. Livingston" on Justia Law

The State challenged the trial court's suppression of evidence taken from defendant Jesse Lee Cunningham's home pursuant to warrant. The trial court ruled that pursuant to Crim. P. 41(e), defendant's motion to suppress required the State to initially go forward with evidence that the seizure was performed pursuant to a facially valid warrant, and that the warrant was legally executed. After review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in that analysis. "Whether a search or seizure is performed pursuant to a warrant or is warrantless, defendant under Crim. P. 41(e) bears the burden of going forward to show that the search or seizure violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights." View "Colorado v. Cunningham" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant Neil Roggow of sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, based on his unlawful sexual contact with an eight-year-old girl. The court of appeals reversed his conviction, concluding that the evidence was insufficient to prove that Roggow was in a position of trust with respect to the victim because he was not charged with her care or supervision when the unlawful acts occurred. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that, for purposes of section 18-3-405.3, a defendant need not be expressly charged with a particular duty or responsibility over the child at the time of the unlawful act in order to occupy a position of trust. The Court concluded that the evidence in this case was sufficient for a jury to conclude that Roggow was in a position of trust with respect to the victim at the time of the unlawful acts. View "Colorado v. Roggow" on Justia Law

The State brought an interlocutory appeal to challenge the District Court's suppression of Defendant Khaled Zadran's statements, which were obtained through a custodial interrogation. The police arrested and interrogated Zadran in the course of an investigation of a suspected drug dealer. The issue before the Supreme Court in this matter was whether the police officer who interrogated Zadran engaged in coercive conduct sufficient to render Zadran's inculpatory statements involuntary. The trial court found that the interrogating officer made improper implied promises and had a generally coercive demeanor. Thus, the trial court concluded that all of Zadran's statements were involuntary and inadmissible. The Court held that under the totality of the circumstances, that the interrogation was not coercive and the statements were voluntary. View "Colorado v. Zadran" on Justia Law

The State brought an interlocutory appeal to challenge the District Court's suppression of Jasim Ramadon's statements obtained from a custodial interrogation. Ramadon is a native of Iraq who the United States military brought to this country for his protection as a teenager. In 2012, the Colorado Springs police brought Ramadon to the police station as part of a sexual assault investigation. The police had information identifying Ramadon as one of the perpetrators in the sexual assault. The trial court found that under the totality of the circumstances, all of Ramadon's statements after minute forty-two of the interrogation tape were impermissibly coerced and involuntary. After viewing the videotape of the interrogation, the Supreme Court upheld the trial court's suppression order, however disagreeing with the time of the coercive behavior. The Supreme Court held that starting at minute fifty-four, instead of minute forty-two, was when the interrogating officer told Ramadon that if he did not tell the truth, he would likely be deported to Iraq. The record supported the trial court's conclusion that coercive police conduct during the custodial interrogation played a significant role in inducing Ramadon's inculpatory statements. View "Colorado v. Ramadon" on Justia Law

The State petitioned for relief from an in limine ruling of the juvenile court allowing the introduction of testimony by the juvenile’s psychological expert without regard for the court-ordered examination mandated by section 16-8-107, C.R.S. (2013). The juvenile court reasoned that in the absence of any provision of the Criminal Procedure Code specifying otherwise, the requirements of section 16-8-107 did not apply to delinquency proceedings. Finding no error in the juvenile court's analysis, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Colorado in the Interest of A.A." on Justia Law

Defendant sought the return of $11,200 that was forfeited, distributed and spent by the receiving agencies three-and-a-half years before his criminal conviction was dismissed. The trial court granted defendant's motion. The State appealed, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order. After its review, the Supreme Court held that section 16-13-307(1.6), C.R.S. (2013) of the public nuisance statute did not apply where the underlying criminal case was dismissed following a reversal of the related criminal conviction on appeal when forfeiture judgment already entered. Accordingly, the appellate court was reversed. View "Colorado v. $11,200.00 U.S. Currency" on Justia Law

The State brought an interlocutory appeal to challenge the trial court's suppression of evidence discovered in a vehicle search incident to the arrest of defendant Shaun Crum. Police officers observed Crum standing near the open rear driver-side door of a SUV late at night in a commercial area known for high levels of drug activity. The officers approached Crum to speak with him, ran a wants and warrants check, and discovered an outstanding warrant for Crum's arrest. As Crum was being placed under arrest, he dropped a fast food wrapper and stepped on it, attempting to crush it with his feet. The officers retrieved the wrapper, which was found to hold a baggie containing two Oxycodone pills packaged in a manner consistent with a possible intent to distribute. The officers then searched the vehicle, finding various items in the passenger compartment that led to additional drug charges. Crum moved to suppress, but the trial court ruled that although the officers had probable cause to arrest Crum for possession of a controlled substance, they lacked sufficient reason to believe that the vehicle contained further evidence of possession. Consequently, the court suppressed the evidence discovered in the search. Because the officers saw Crum reaching into the vehicle, apparently retrieving the pills that he later attempted to conceal, the Supreme Court concluded it was reasonable for them to suspect that additional pills might be found in the vehicle. Under these circumstances, the Court found sufficient connection between the contraband in Crum’s possession and the vehicle to give rise to a reasonable articulable suspicion that additional contraband might be located in the vehicle. Therefore the suppression order was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings. View "Colorado v. Crum" on Justia Law