Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Reynolds v. Cotten
Supreme Court of Colorado · 2012-04-16 · cited 18×
This case concerned whether owners of several ditches diverting water from La Jara Creek could obtain declaratory relief confirming that their appropriative rights under 1952 and 1960 decrees extended to non-drain native creek water, rather than being limited to water from the San Luis Valley Drain Ditch. The water court granted summary judgment to the State and Division Engineers on the ground that the issue had been resolved against the ditch owners or their predecessors by collateral estoppel in a prior 1982 declaratory judgment action (W-3894) involving the same parties. On direct appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed, holding that the ditch owners' entitlement to non-drain native water had not been actually or necessarily determined in the earlier litigation, either expressly or by implication, because the prior judgment focused on quantifying rights to drain water and subordinating certain claims without addressing the broader scope of native-water rights. The court therefore remanded for further proceedings on the merits.
propertyprocedure
People v. Esparza
Supreme Court of Colorado · 2012-03-26 · cited 16×
In People v. Esparza, the Colorado Supreme Court addressed an interlocutory appeal from the suppression of drug paraphernalia and methamphetamine found in the defendant's parked truck after police used narcotics detection dogs to sniff its exterior following her lawful arrests for driving under suspension. The district court had granted the motions to suppress, holding that article II, section 7 of the Colorado Constitution required reasonable suspicion before police could bring a trained dog within detection range of a vehicle. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that a dog sniff implicates no legitimate privacy interest because it can reveal only the presence or absence of contraband, which receives no constitutional protection, and therefore does not constitute a search under the state constitution any more than under the Fourth Amendment. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this holding.
criminal lawprocedure
Vinton v. Virzi
Supreme Court of Colorado · 2012-02-13 · cited 36×
In Vinton v. Virzi, attorney Amanda Vinton sought relief from probate court orders that allowed beneficiary Sharon Virzi to amend her petition challenging trustee Debra McWilliams's administration of a family trust by adding a fraud claim against Vinton personally, which forced Vinton to withdraw as counsel. The probate court denied Vinton's motions to dismiss the fraud claim for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and awarded Virzi attorney fees. The Colorado Supreme Court held that the fraud allegations lacked sufficient particularity to survive dismissal, rendering the amendment futile and an abuse of discretion, and that the record did not support the fee award because Vinton was not given an opportunity to respond and advanced a rational argument on jurisdiction. The court therefore directed dismissal of the fraud claim against Vinton and vacation of the fee award.
procedurepropertytorts & liability
People v. Gabriesheski
Supreme Court of Colorado · 2011-10-24 · cited 26×
The case involved a prosecution for sexual assault on a child by one in a position of trust, in which the trial court excluded testimony from a guardian ad litem and a social worker involved in a parallel dependency and neglect proceeding, leading the prosecutor to concede she could not proceed and resulting in dismissal. The Colorado Supreme Court held that the court of appeals had jurisdiction over the People's appeal under section 16-12-102(1) but disapproved of its affirmance of the evidentiary rulings. The court reasoned that a child subject to a dependency and neglect proceeding is not the client of a court-appointed guardian ad litem, so the attorney-client privilege does not apply to their communications, and that the trial court had not made sufficient findings to support exclusion of the social worker's testimony under sections 19-3-207 and 13-90-107. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part.
criminal lawfamily lawprocedure
Lewis v. People
Supreme Court of Colorado · 2011-09-12 · cited 11×
The case involved Gerald Lewis's challenge to his separate convictions and sentences for sexual assault and second-degree kidnapping, where the kidnapping charges were elevated to class-two felonies because the victims were sexually assaulted. The court of appeals had affirmed the convictions, and Lewis sought review to overrule the precedent in People v. Henderson in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in Apprendi v. New Jersey and Blakely v. Washington, which addressed the treatment of elements versus sentencing factors. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that those federal rulings did not alter the analysis of legislative intent under double jeopardy and merger doctrines. The court reasoned that Colorado statutes separately define the offenses and clearly authorize cumulative punishments, with the distinction between elements and sentencing factors reflecting an intent to permit separate convictions rather than merger.
criminal lawprocedure
People v. Speer
Supreme Court of Colorado · 2011-06-27 · cited 28×
In People v. Speer, the defendant was convicted of attempted aggravated robbery after evidence showed he pointed a gun at a victim and shot him during an incident outside a convenience store, though he claimed he acted under duress from threats by an accomplice and that the shooting was accidental. The Colorado Supreme Court addressed two issues on appeal: whether the trial court erred by denying a jury instruction on the affirmative defense of duress and whether it erred by rejecting challenges for cause to two prospective jurors employed by the Department of Homeland Security and Transportation Security Administration. The court held that the duress instruction was properly denied because the defendant's testimony showed multiple opportunities to escape or seek help, failing to meet the statutory requirements as previously interpreted. It further held that the juror challenges were properly denied because DHS and TSA employees are not considered part of a public law enforcement agency under the relevant statute governing challenges for cause. The court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the conviction.
criminal lawprocedure