Nathan B. Coats

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gognat sued Ellsworth, Smith, and MSD Energy for trade secret misappropriation under Colorado's Uniform Trade Secrets Act, alleging they used his proprietary methodology for identifying oil and gas reserves in western Kentucky without proper compensation after he shared it in a 1997 joint venture. The district court granted summary judgment to Smith, ruling the claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations. The court of appeals affirmed, and the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed as well. The Court held that the alleged information constituted a single trade secret as a matter of law, so the limitations period began running when Gognat first learned of the misappropriation in 2000 or earlier, more than three years before he filed suit in 2005.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case concerned a challenge by Citizens for Responsible Growth to Elbert County's approval of RCI Development Partners' applications for rezoning, a new community, and a preliminary subdivision plat to build a large planned urban development. The district court reviewed the approvals on the merits under C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) after denying a motion to dismiss, but the court of appeals reversed and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, finding the complaint untimely filed more than thirty days after final agency action. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, ruling that the Board's written resolution was required to finalize its quasi-judicial decision under county regulations and that due process requires notice of the written ruling before the thirty-day filing period begins.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The Upper Yampa Water Conservancy District sought a conditional water right to divert water into its reservoir for various uses, but landowners opposed the application. After the District presented its case, the water court granted a motion to dismiss under C.R.C.P. 41(b), finding insufficient evidence of need to satisfy the anti-speculation doctrine. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, holding that existing contracts for stored water without specific plans for beneficial use, combined with no demonstration of reasonably anticipated future needs based on population growth, failed to establish the required first step toward a valid conditional right. The Court noted that contractual commitments alone do not prove non-speculative demand and that water rights cannot be decreed absent intent and a plan for beneficial use.

propertyenvironment

In this case, the prosecution appealed a district court order suppressing evidence obtained from a warrantless search of the defendant's iPhone, which had been left in a convenience store restroom; the phone's text messages led to a warrant for further searches and ultimately to drug charges against the defendant. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the suppression, holding that the defendant had not abandoned the phone and that police exceeded any permissible limits on examining lost property by viewing its contents without a warrant or an exception to the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that the circumstances did not support treating the phone as abandoned, lost, or mislaid in a manner justifying the intrusion, and that the initial examination of messages went beyond efforts to identify the owner. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved a dispute over an indemnity clause in a commercial lease between Northglenn, LLC, the owner of a shopping center, and Carol Constable, a tenant operating a flower shop. After a customer slipped on ice in the parking lot, Northglenn sought indemnity from Constable under the lease for claims arising from its own alleged negligence in maintaining the common areas. The district court granted summary judgment to Constable, ruling the provision unenforceable as against public policy, but the court of appeals reversed. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the clause clearly and unequivocally expressed the parties' intent for Constable to indemnify Northglenn even for its own negligence and did not improperly delegate any nondelegable statutory duties of the landowner.

propertytorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a dispute over ownership of subsurface mineral rights in land that the Colorado Department of Transportation's predecessor condemned for highway improvements in Garfield County during the 1970s and 1980s. Gypsum Ranch Co. sued to quiet title to the minerals, arguing the department acquired only easements or rights-of-way without mineral interests, while the department contended it obtained fee simple title including the minerals. The district court granted summary judgment to the department, but the court of appeals reversed on the ground that statutes barred acquisition of mineral estates in highway condemnations. The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding that the pre-2008 statutory scheme permitted the department to acquire fee simple estates including minerals because the restrictions on mineral interests applied only to rights-of-way and easements, not to full fee acquisitions, and remanded the case.

property

In People v. White, the defendant was convicted in Teller County of sexual assault on a child, incest, and possession of marijuana. After trial, the defense moved for a mistrial upon learning that one juror had recently moved to another county, but the trial court denied the motion after finding the juror remained qualified. The court of appeals reversed the convictions, holding that the juror's move outside the county without intent to return within twelve months disqualified him under the statute. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the convictions, ruling that the juror satisfied the statutory requirements for residency by having lived in the county more than half the time and that the appeals court had misconstrued the interplay between the residency qualification and the disqualification provisions.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. Baltazar, the prosecution challenged a district court order allowing a criminal defendant charged with drug distribution and related offenses to seek ex parte subpoenas duces tecum to third parties, with any resulting information kept from the prosecution unless required by Crim. P. 16 or used at trial. The Colorado Supreme Court held that the order was erroneous and made its rule to show cause absolute, remanding for further proceedings. The court reasoned that Crim. P. 17(c) permits subpoenas duces tecum only for production at trial or under court supervision, not as a secret investigative tool returnable solely to the defense, and that neither the Fifth nor Sixth Amendment grants defendants a constitutional right to conduct such ex parte discovery without notice to opposing counsel.

criminal lawprocedure

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Dale Ruff challenged the designated independent medical examiner's connections to the employer's insurer, Pinnacol Assurance, through a managed care network and medical advisor role, seeking a protective order on grounds of apparent or actual conflict of interest. An administrative law judge denied the request after finding no such conflict based on the facts, including the physician's contractual independence and lack of evidence of improper influence, and the Industrial Claim Appeals Office affirmed. The court of appeals remanded for further review of the conflict issue under its reading of the applicable rules but rejected the claim that the examiner owed judicial-style disclosure and disqualification duties. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the remand, holding that the ALJ had adequately considered the examiner-insurer relationship, and affirmed the ruling that the examiner was not subject to quasi-judicial ethical obligations even if the examination could be viewed as quasi-judicial.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved the suppression of drugs and drug paraphernalia seized from the defendant's vehicle during a search incident to her arrest for false reporting. The district court initially denied the motion to suppress but reversed after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Gant. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the suppression, reasoning that the defendant was already handcuffed and in a patrol car, and it was not reasonable for officers to believe the vehicle contained evidence relevant to the crime of false reporting.

criminal lawprocedure

In People v. McCarty, the People appealed a district court's suppression of methamphetamine found in a vehicle during a traffic stop after the defendant produced an unused glass pipe from his pocket and admitted buying it at a store under surveillance. The Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the suppression order, holding that the circumstances did not establish probable cause for a warrantless vehicle search under the automobile exception. The court further ruled that the search was not justified as incident to arrest under Arizona v. Gant because the defendant could not access the vehicle, and it rejected application of a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a district court ruling that part of Colorado's statutory scheme for unitary review in death penalty cases was unconstitutional. Specifically, the district court interpreted section 16-12-208(8) as imposing an absolute two-year limit on postconviction review, record certification, and appellate briefing with no extensions allowed, finding the no-extension provision to conflict with Crim. P. 32.2 and infringe on judicial rulemaking authority. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the statute does not itself create an inflexible two-year deadline but instead directs the supreme court to adopt rules implementing a two-year goal, and that Crim. P. 32.2 fulfills this directive by setting specific time limits while permitting extensions when necessary to protect constitutional rights or other statutory objectives. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

criminal lawprocedure

In Boles v. Sun Ergoline, Inc., the plaintiff brought a strict products liability claim against the manufacturer of a tanning booth after suffering a finger injury from an exhaust fan while using the facility, but the lower courts granted summary judgment to the defendant on the ground that a release she had signed barred the suit. The court of appeals had affirmed by applying the four-factor Jones v. Dressel test for determining the enforceability of exculpatory agreements releasing claims for simple negligence. The Colorado Supreme Court reversed, ruling that an ordinary consumer's release of a manufacturer from strict products liability claims is void as against public policy, even if the agreement would be enforceable for negligence claims, and remanded for further proceedings.

torts & liability

The People appealed the district court's suppression of evidence seized from the defendant's home during execution of a search warrant. The defendant had been charged with theft, embezzlement of public property, and related offenses arising from his direction of a university forensic training program funded by federal grants. The district court found the supporting affidavit deficient because it failed to identify the auditor and because the underlying records appeared several years old. The court reversed the suppression order, concluding that the affidavit provided a substantial basis to believe the information was reliable and that evidence of criminal activity would still be found at the home.

criminal lawprocedure