Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

The State asked the Colorado Supreme Court to reverse the trial court’s suppression order and remand the case to allow them to make additional arguments supporting the warrantless seizure of defendant-appellee Joe Ramos’s cell phone on the theory that they did not have specific notice that the seizure of the phone was at issue. After review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court found no reversible error in the trial court's suppression order and affirmed. View "Colorado v. Ramos" on Justia Law

In December 2018, Alfred Moreno repeatedly emailed his ex-wife, E.M. He asked to see his children, but he also made a series of disparaging and vulgar comments about her. E.M. told Moreno to stop contacting her. Undeterred, Moreno posted the following on Facebook: “To whom ever is fkng [E.M.] in my friends list. Will you please tell her to have my kids call me asap. You can have her and the STD[.] I just want my kids to contact me. And remember that you are not there [sic] father okay. Thanks homies[.]” Moreno was charged with: (1) harassment under section 18-9-111(1)(e), a class three misdemeanor; and (2) habitual domestic violence under section 18-6-801(7), C.R.S. (2021), a class five felony. Moreno moved to dismiss the harassment charge, arguing that subsection (1)(e) is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague, both facially and as applied to him, in violation of the freedom-of-speech provisions in the United States and Colorado constitutions. The district court concluded that the phrase “intended to harass” in section 18-9-111(1)(e), C.R.S. (2021), unconstitutionally restricted protected speech. The Colorado Supreme Court agreed that this provision was substantially overbroad on its face and thus affirmed the order. View "Colorado v. Moreno" on Justia Law

Jared Cortes-Gonzalez entered into a global disposition that required him to plead guilty in four felony cases, including two in which he faced complaints to revoke his probation. The plea agreement indicated that, while the sentences would be within the court’s discretion, the cumulative prison term would not exceed twenty years. Two weeks later, Cortes-Gonzalez filed a “Motion to Consider 35-C,” alleging that his attorney (the “public defender”) had provided ineffective assistance by failing to accurately advise him of the plea agreement’s potential punishment. In April 2021, alternate defense counsel submitted a supplemental Crim. P. 35(c) motion. The prosecution asked the district court to issue an order finding a “waiver of all confidential attorney-client privileges or relationships affected by the pursuit” of the Crim. P. 35(c) ineffective assistance claim. The court granted the motion, and the prosecution served an subpoena duces tecum (“SDT”) on the public defender to compel the production records in her possession related to Cortes-Gonzalez’s four cases. The public defender objected to the SDT. The issue presented to the Colorado Supreme Court in this case related to the attorney-client privilege in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court held: (1) whenever a defendant alleges ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant automatically waives the attorney-client privilege, as well as any other confidentiality, between counsel and the defendant, but only with respect to the information that is related to the ineffective assistance claim; (2) the procedures set forth in Crim. P. 35(c)(3)(V) in no way modify section 18-1-417, C.R.S. (2021); (3) it is improper for prosecutors to request an order or use a Crim. P. 17 subpoena duces tecum (“SDT”) to attempt to access the confidential information covered by section 18-1-417(1); and (4) the prosecution doesn’t have an inherent right to an in camera review of the allegedly ineffective counsel’s case file - even if the purpose of the review is to ensure that all the information subject to the waiver will be produced. After any in camera review, the court must disclose to the prosecution claim-related information not previously produced. View "In re Colorado v. Cortes- Gonzalez" on Justia Law

In November 2017, Saul Cisneros was charged with two misdemeanor offenses and jailed. The court set Cisneros’s bond at $2,000, and Cisneros’s daughter posted that bond four days later, but the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office did not release Cisneros. Instead, the Sheriff’s Office notified U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) that the jail had been asked to release Cisneros on bond. ICE then sent the jail a detainer and administrative warrant, requesting that the jail continue to detain Cisneros because ICE suspected that he was removable from the United States. Cisneros was then placed on an indefinite “ICE hold,” and remained detained. The jail subsequently advised Cisneros’s daughter that the Sheriff’s Office would not release her father due to the ICE hold, and she ultimately recovered the bond money that she had posted. During his detention, Cisneros, along with another pretrial detainee, initiated a class action in state court against Sheriff Elder, in his official capacity, for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus relief. Their complaint alleged that Sheriff Elder did not have the authority under state law to continue to hold pretrial detainees in custody when Colorado law required their release, nor did he have the authority to deprive persons of their liberty based on suspicion of civil violations of federal immigration law. Cisneros also asserted a tort claim against Sheriff Elder, seeking damages for false imprisonment, but he subsequently filed an amended complaint in which he did not reassert that claim, stating that he intended to file the requisite notice of such a claim under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (“CGIA”) and to reassert that claim at the proper time. The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the district court erred in concluding that section 24-10-106(1.5)(b), C.R.S. (2021), of the CGIA did not waive sovereign immunity for intentional torts that result from the operation of a jail for claimants who were incarcerated but not convicted. The Supreme Court concluded section 24-10-106(1.5)(b) waived immunity for such intentional torts. Accordingly, the Court reversed the judgment of the division below and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cisneros v. Elder" on Justia Law

The State of Colorado filed an interlocutory appeal to challenge a Denver District Court order suppressing defendant Alexander Brown's statements following his detention by police. The trial court determined that the officers who detained Brown did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that a crime had been committed, was being committed, or was about to be committed. After its review, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded that while the trial court erred in considering the officers’ subjective intent in effectuating the seizure, it was nonetheless correct that the officers lacked reasonable and articulable suspicion to detain Brown. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s order suppressing Brown’s statements, albeit on other grounds. View "Colorado v. Brown" on Justia Law

Brooke Rojas was convicted of two counts of theft based on her improper receipt of food stamp benefits. Rojas initially applied for food stamp benefits from the Department of Human Services in August 2012 when she had no income. She received a recertification letter in December, which she submitted in mid-January 2013, indicating that she still had no income. And although she had not yet received a paycheck when she submitted the recertification letter, Rojas had started a new job on January 1. Rojas continued receiving food stamp benefits every month until July, when she inadvertently allowed them to lapse. She reapplied in August 2013. Although still working, Rojas reported that she had no income. The Department checked Rojas’s employment status in connection with the August application and learned that she was making about $55,000 a year (to support a family of seven). The Department determined that Rojas had received $5,632 in benefits to which she was not legally entitled. At trial, Rojas’s defense was that she lacked the requisite culpable mental state—she didn’t knowingly deceive the government; she just misunderstood the forms. Before trial, Rojas objected to the prosecution’s proposed admission of the August 2013 application because it exceeded the time period of the charged offenses and didn’t lead to the receipt of any benefits. The prosecution countered that the application was admissible as res gestae evidence—to show how the investigation began—and as evidence of specific intent. The court found it relevant as circumstantial evidence of Rojas’s mental state. In its opinion issued upon Rojas' appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court concluded it was "time for us to bury res gestae. ... By continuing to rely on res gestae as a standalone basis for admissibility and allowing the vagueness of res gestae to persist next to these more analytically demanding rules of relevancy, we have created a breeding ground for confusion, inconsistency, and unfairness." The Court's decision to abolish the res gestate doctrine in criminal cases prompted it to reverse judgment and remand for a new trial. View "Rojas v. Colorado" on Justia Law

In 2013, Respondent Ray Ojeda was charged with kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and shooting a fifteen-year-old girl back in 1997. The victim, who survived, reported the crime immediately but could not identify the perpetrator. The investigation eventually stalled out. At some point in time, the Denver Police Department’s Crime Lab misplaced the victim’s rape kit. Years later, when the police found and retested evidence from the victim’s rape kit, DNA from the vaginal swab matched Ojeda. The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on a split decision of a division of the court of appeals, which held that the trial court erred in denying Ojeda’s challenge to an allegedly discriminatory jury strike under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), during the jury selection process. The Supreme Court held that because the prosecution offered an explicitly race-based reason for striking Juror R.P., it did not meet its burden of providing a race-neutral explanation for the strike, as required under step two of the Batson test. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, albeit on other grounds. View "Colorado v. Ojeda" on Justia Law

The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed Nicholas Garcia, Jr's conviction for second degree kidnapping. The issue this case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court's review centered on whether the trial court erred by instructing the jury that the phrase “seizes and carries,” as used in the second degree kidnapping statute, 18-3-302(1), C.R.S. (2021), meant “any movement, however short in distance.” Because the trial court’s instruction allowed the jury to convict Garcia without finding that he seized the victim or moved the victim from “one place to another” as required by the statute, the Supreme Court held that the trial court committed reversible error. Accordingly, judgment was reversed and the matter remanded with directions to remand to the trial court for a new trial. View "Garcia v. Colorado" on Justia Law

A county court ruled that defendant Nicholas Greer was not entitled to state-funded legal representation because he was not indigent. The State charged defendant with careless driving and leaving the scene of an accident. Greer applied for court-appointed counsel by completing and submitting Judicial Department Form (“JDF”) 208. In attempting to establish his indigency, Greer reported that he was unemployed and had no income or assets. He acknowledged, however, that he and his daughter lived rent-free in his parents’ home and that his parents covered all of his household expenses. Greer further disclosed that his household had a monthly gross income of $7,200 and monthly expenses totaling approximately $6,000. After reviewing Greer’s application, the public defender concluded that he was indigent and thus qualified for court-appointed counsel. The county court questioned that assessment, however. In response, the public defender argued that Greer’s parents’ income should not be considered because, although they have “chosen to share their home” with him and cover his household expenses, they had “not chosen to share their income” with him. The public defender then noted that Greer’s parents are not willing to pay for an attorney to represent him in this case and that he has no basis to compel them to do so. The Colorado Supreme Court concluded defendant was indeed indigent: "when his parents’ income is excluded from the indigency determination, it becomes readily apparent that the defendant’s current financial status does not afford him equal access to the legal process." Because the county court took into account defendant’s parents’ income in rejecting his application for court-appointed counsel, the Court reversed the county court and remanded for further proceedings. View "In re Colorado v. Greer" on Justia Law

The district court in this case affirmed a county court's determination that Thomas Pearson was not entitled to a self-defense instruction as a matter of law, with respect to a pending harassment charge. The issue his case presented for the Colorado Supreme Court was whether a defendant charged with harassment could claim self-defense as an affirmative defense. The charge arose as Pearson, working as a roadside assistance tow-truck driver, got into an altercation with another driver, Timothy O'Kelly. The Supreme Court concluded a defendant could assert self-defense as an affirmative defense to the crime of harassment so long as there was some credible evidence to allow a reasonable jury to find that they acted with intent to alarm, as outlined in section 18-9-111(1)(a), C.R.S. (2021), as a means of self-defense. Judgment was reversed and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. View "Pearson v. Colorado" on Justia Law